Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING (FOREIGN LANGUAGES).

Mr. Dalton: asked the Prime Minister on what date, since the outbreak of war, the first broadcasts were made from the British Broadcasting Corporation in Polish, Czech, Serbo-Croat and Rumanian, respectively; and how frequently it is intended to broadcast in these languages in future?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Samuel Hoare): I have been asked to reply. The first bulletin in Polish was broadcast on 7th September and in Czech on 8th September. No Serbo-Croat and Rumanian broadcasts have yet been made but arrangements for doing so are being made. The full schedule of bulletins provides for three a day in Polish and Czech and two a day in Serbo-Croat and Rumanian.

Mr. Dalton: Will the right hon. Gentleman represent to those responsible for the administration of the British Broadcasting Corporation that we look for something rather more effective than his answer indicates, in view of the importance of influencing opinion in these countries?

Sir S. Hoare: I would not accept the assumption in the hon. Gentleman's question, but I will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Lord Privy Seal, as representing the Minister of Information, whether he will consider issuing the individual names and addresses of captured German units as they occur for transmission in the British Broadcasting Corporation's German broadcasts, in order that the maximum

interest in these broadcasts may be assured?

Sir S. Hoare: It has already been announced in the B.B.C.'s German broadcasts that arrangements have been made to publish in these broadcasts, as particulars become available, the names of German prisoners and also the names of dead and wounded whose identity is definitely established, for the benefit of friends and relatives.

Mr. Morgan: Would the Minister also think of including internees, as being a humanistic thing to do in regard to German subjects who may be disposed to think of us in that way?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether that would be wise or not, but I will convey the suggestion to my Noble Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — BLACK SEA (ALLIED WARSHIPS).

Mr. Price: asked the Prime Minister whether any inquiries have been made of the Turkish Government if permission will be granted to allow allied warships into the Black Sea should necessity arise?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The circumstances in which warships may pass through the Straits in every contingency are governed by the Montreux Straits Convention, of which His Majesty's Government are one of the signatories and to which I would refer the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY (WHITE PAPER).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to issue a further White Paper dealing with the whole grounds of Anglo-German relations over the last 12 months?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): Yes, Sir. Arrangements are being made for the issue of a further White Paper shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Mr. Jagger: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that no Member of this House volunteering for unpaid


National Service has yet been accepted for service in the Foreign Office; and whether he can promise that this state of affairs shall not continue?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am aware that certain Members of this House have offered their services without payment to the Foreign Office, and I can assure them that their offers have been very highly appreciated. This matter has, however, been carefully considered and the conclusion reached that it would be undesirable for Members of this House to be employed in a Government Department, even without salary, in a temporary civilian capacity. A Member of this House so employed would be at the same time a member of the Legislature and a servant of the Executive and it was felt that such a dual position might give rise to a conflict of responsibilty which might be embarrassing to all concerned.

Mr. Jagger: Am I to understand that in no Government Department has any Member of Parliament been accepted for voluntary service?

The Prime Minister: Not as far as I know.

Miss Wilkinson: That being the case, is not this just another way of preventing us from getting any information, or even preventing the Foreign Office from getting any information?

Mr. Cocks: Do I understand that the reply applies to every Government Department?

The Prime Minister: It applies to the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEPENDENCIES (NATIVE WELFARE SERVICES).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the policy of the Government to maintain and develop native welfare services in the British Dependencies during the war period; and whether he will give special care that this work is not prejudiced by military requirements and defence expenditure?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): This general question is under consideration and it is not possible to make a statement on it at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC REGULATIONS (MILITARY SERVICES).

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Transport what exemption from traffic regulations have been accorded to vehicles moving troops, stores or materials for air-raid precautions?

The Minister of Transport (Captain Wallace): I have made two Orders dealing with the subject to which my hon. Friend refers. The Drivers' Hours Order provides that Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (which limits the hours of duty for driving), shall not apply in relation to the driving of motor vehicles while used for the haulage of materials or supplies for Government purposes in defence services. Where hours in excess of those permitted by the section are worked the fact that the driver is employed on such work must be entered on the record; and at least 10 consecutive hours of rest must be allowed after each excess period. The Motor Vehicles (Armed Forces) (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations, 1939, vary the provisions of the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1934, in such manner as to impose no speed limit outside built-up areas on vehicles owned by the Admiralty, the War Department or the Air Ministry and used for naval, military or Air Force purposes; or on vehicles so used while being driven by persons for the time being subject to the orders of any member of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Sir H. Williams: Am I to understand that there has been no change in built-up areas and no change with regard to the rules affecting pedestrian crossings?

Captain Wallace: Pedestrian crossings are an entirely different question. Certainly, there has been no change with regard to the obligation to observe the 30 miles an hour limit in built-up areas.

Mr. Jagger: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that what he is doing obliges transport workers to work 14 hours in every 24 hours?

Captain Wallace: I am sure the hon. Member will agree that there may on occasion be certain cases where it is in the national interest that they should, and I believe they are very glad to do so.

Mr. dagger: It is impossible for them to do it.

PRIORITY SIGNS (VEHICLES).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will consider making an order prohibiting the use of unauthorised priority signs on vehicles?

Captain Wallace: I regard the use of unauthorised priority signs on vehicles as most undesirable, and I am consulting other Departments with a view to imposing restrictions on their use.

WORKMEN'S RAILWAY TICKETS (AIR-RAID WARNINGS).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, owing to the air-raid warning on 6th instant, many workpeople were un able to start their journey to work until the all-clear at about 9 a.m., with the result that they had to pay full fare instead of workman's fare; and will he ask the London Passenger Transport Board whether, in similar circumstances in future, they will arrange for work people to get their cheap tickets as usual?

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that working people were refused workmen's tickets at the reduced rate on 6th September when they reached the station somewhat later after being held up by the air-raid signal; and what steps he intends to take to see that the working population are not penalised by such warnings in future?

Captain Wallace: It has been decided that, in the event of air-raid warning signals being given to the general public during the times when holders of workmen's tickets are usually conveyed and workpeople being unable in consequence to travel by the authorised workmen's train services, workmen's tickets will be available for issue for a period of 20 minutes from the sounding of the "all clear" signal.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that 20 minutes is an exceedingly short space of time, particularly in view of the fact that the "all-clear" signal does not go simultaneously in all districts, and in view of the fact that there has been some divergence of opinion among the public as to whether the "all-clear" signal has gone or not?

Captain Wallace: I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this question is a very much more difficult one than appears on the surface. I intend to go into it further, but I will be perfectly honest and say that I think in present circumstances the concession offered by the railway companies is not an ungenerous one. With regard to air-raid warnings, the hon. Member will remember that the Home Secretary recently made a statement on the subject, and 1 hope and believe we shall have a synchronisation of the "all-clear" signals all round.

Mr. Morrison: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that on the last occasion this happened, there were enormous crowds around the tube stations and that it would have been quite impossible to supply them all with tickets in 20 minutes?

Captain Wallace: I fully appreciate that, and I hope the House will agree that I have done my best in the circumstances. [Hon. Members: "No."] I have not closed my mind to the possibility of making some better arrangement, but the matter is a good deal more complicated than hon. Members may think.

Mr. Garro Jones: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recognise that the very fixation of this period of 20 minutes indicates a complete lack of consideration of the whole problem? What is to happen if there are successive air-raid warnings, which could be brought about by no more than 20 or 30 bombing machines advancing towards the country at various times of the day? Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman assure us that the whole question will be reconsidered in a more practical manner?

Captain Wallace: Certainly. I have already said that I am prepared to give further consideration to it. With regard to what the hon. Member said about aeroplanes coming from time to time at different hours of the day, I would point out that this applies only to certain hours of the day. I will do my best to make a better arrangement as soon as I can possibly do so.

Mr. Thorne: Would it not be advisable, when there are air-raid warnings, that the men who have workmen's tickets should use them after the "all-clear" signal, without having to get new tickets?

Captain Wallace: That is one of the subjects I intend to consider further.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: In view of the general feeling in the House, if a question is put down will the Minister be able to answer it, after further investigation, in a week's time?

Captain Wallace: I hope so, but I cannot give any definite promise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

HIS MAJESTY'S SUBMARINE "THETIS."

Mr. White: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to His Majesty'sSubmarine "Thetis"?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): As the hon. Member will be aware, the efforts of the Liverpool and Glasgow Salvage Association to raise His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" have been successful and I should like to express the Admiralty's appreciation of the efficient manner in which this difficult task has been completed. The submarine has been moved from the position in which she sank and is now beached in 37 feet of water. The bodies of the victims are now being removed, and as each is identified the relatives are consulted as to whether they wish the funeral to take place at Holyhead or at a place selected by themselves. Arrangements have been made to hold a series of public funerals at Holyhead at which due naval and civic honours will be paid. At a later stage, it will be necessary to lighten the submarine by pumping in compressed air so that she can be floated and left at low tide higher up the beach. The official entry can then be made to enable the Public Tribunal to ascertain further evidence as to the cause of the disaster. Mr. Justice Bucknill is being kept fully informed of the developments which have taken place so that his representative may be present at the official entry.

Mr. White: May I assume that in connection with these proceedings no expense will fall upon the relatives?

Mr. Shakespeare: That is so. The charges are falling upon the Admiralty.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it intended to place the submarine in dock in order that an examination may be made there?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think it desirable to announce the future movements of this submarine.

Mr. Logan: Will the verbatim report of the proceedings in connection with this accident be circulated to Members of the House?

Mr. Shakespeare: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement in the Press that two funerals took place yesterday, at which the Admiralty were not represented?

Mr. Shakespeare: I was not aware of that.

RECRUITING (MANCHESTER AREA).

Mr. Fleming: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the present facilities for training members of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve in the Manchester area; and what steps are being taken to extend the opportunity for such training to would-be recruits in that area?

Mr. Shakespeare: It was the intention of the Admiralty to form a Naval Brigade in. the Manchester area, but owing to the outbreak of war a different procedure will be adopted. Recruiting for the R.N.V.R. has now ceased. My right hon. Friend will make a general statement at an early date dealing with plans for recruiting naval personnel during the period of the war.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM STUDIOS.

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will pre vent the premature closing of film studios, which might be of use for pro paganda purposes?

Sir S. Hoare: The matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is receiving close attention and steps are already being taken to safeguard the position as far as circumstances permit.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is the Minister aware that at Denham a very remarkable film is being produced by Mr. Alexander Korda, with the star Conrad Veidt as one of the actors; and that its value, at this moment, for propaganda and other purposes would be very great?

Sir S. Hoare: I have said that that is the very type of question which is under consideration.

Mr. T. Williams: While this matter is being considered will the right hon. Gentleman also take into consideration the value of the last Cinematograph Films Act with regard to conditions of labour and relations between employers and employés?

Sir S. Hoare: I think that is a question which ought to be addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Harold Nicolson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great use which is being made in Germany and other countries of the film as an instrument of propaganda?

Sir S. Hoare: That is just the kind of question which is very much in our minds.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH LEAFLETS).

Mr. Leach: asked the Lord Privy Seal, as representing the Minister of Information, who compiled the message distributed by the Royal Air Force in Germany so that recognition may be given for a piece of work so greatly in the national interests?

Sir S. Hoare: Whilst I appreciate the hon. Member's commendation of this message, I am afraid that I cannot undertake to give the name of any individual concerned in its compilation.

Mr. Leach: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us who the authors are, may I ask him whether he is aware how warm and universal is the approval of this kind of work, and can he tell us that it is the intention of his Department to continue it?

Sir S. Hoare: I would prefer not to give any undertaking, either negative or affirmative, on a matter of that kind. It seems to me to trench very much on the question of defence. I am, however, very much obliged to the hon. Member for his commendation of the work of those who are engaged in this task.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister consider the distribution of a rather more constructive leaflet, instead of purely destructive ones?

Oral Answers to Questions — EVACUATION.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is strong public feeling that Romford and the greater part of Hornchurch should become evacuation areas in view of their exposed position; and whether he will re consider his decision in this matter?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I regret I am not for the moment in a position to consider any further extensions of the list of areas evacuated. Should any further extensions become practicable the claims of the districts to which the hon. Member refers would be borne in mind with those of other areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is great discontent in the emergency medical services arising out of the fact that many nurses, medical students, doctors and others are expected to give their services voluntarily, or for purely nominal remuneration; and whether he will examine and rectify these grievances?

Mr. Elliot: No, Sir, I am not aware of any such discontent. We have in this country a great tradition of voluntary service to those in need and those who give such service, whether in peace or in war, are rightly proud of it. Standard rates of payment have been arranged for doctors, nurses and nursing auxiliaries employed whole time in the service. With regard to medical students, I understand that in general they are most willing to assist in the treatment of casualties and I cannot believe that they wish to profit by the circumstances of war.

Mr. Parker: If I bring a number of grievances before the Minister will he undertake to look into them?

Mr. Elliot: I will undertake to investigate any grievances brought forward by the hon. Member or by other hon. Members, but I think the general position is as I have stated.

Sir William Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a certain number of nurses who volunteered their services some time ago were put to expense in the provision of uniforms and other equipment and surely, when their services


have been accepted, the State ought to provide them with the necessary uniform and equipment?

Mr. Elliot: I shall be glad to look into any cases such as my hon. Friend has indicated.

Miss Ward: Will the Minister consider whether these payments could not be made at more suitable periods, because inconvenience is caused by the fact that people have to wait a considerable time for payment and in some cases the amount of money which they have available may be very small?

Mr. Elliot: I shall be glad to look into the matter if specific cases are brought forward.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why women who volunteered for nursing work have been informed that they must receive payment for it, although their circumstances are such that they can very well do without it; and will he tell us who has given instructions that voluntary workers must be paid, whether they desire to be paid or not?

Mr. Elliot: I shall be glad to look into any cases such as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned but I should have thought that it was open to anybody to return any payments made to them which they did not desire.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that this is happening in connection with A.R.P. work?

Mr. T. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate this question?

Mr. Elliot: I have already offered to go into any specific cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "ATHENIA" (SURVIVORS, HOSPITAL TREATMENT).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many survivors from the "Athenia" were received into hospitals on arrival ashore; into what institutions they were received; and how many are still receiving treatment?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Captain McEwen): My right hon. Friend understands that 30 survivors from

the "Athenia" were admitted to hospitals in Scotland on landing. Of these 19 were admitted to the Western Infirmary, Glasgow, two to the Victoria Hospital, Glasgow, and nine to the Royal Infirmary, Greenock. Thirteen are still receiving in-patient treatment. My right hon. Friend would like to express his appreciation of the prompt measures of assistance carried out by individuals and public bodies in Glasgow and Clydeside on the occasion of the landing of the survivors from the "Athenia."

Mr. Gibson: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say anything about the survivors who were landed at Galway, Eire?

Captain McEwen: No, I am afraid we have no information on that.

Miss Rathbone: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the arrangements at Galway were very unsatisfactory and that British people from the "Athenia" were landed, many of them penniless and in scanty raiment and that no provision was made for advancing them money?

Captain McEwen: I have already said that we have no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN FRUITS (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. Jackson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the list of goods, whose imports are prohibited except by licence, apples have been allowed unrestricted entry, while the entry of many other foreign fruits has been prohibited; and whether he can give a reason for this?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Yes, Sir; the list to which the hon. Member refers was limited to goods on which an immediate restriction of imports was considered necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SHIPPING.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to state the Government's intentions on the creation of a Ministry of Shipping?

The Prime Minister: The Government intend to establish a Ministry of Shipping at an early date and plans for its establishment have been in existence for some time past. I am, however, satisfied that,


at this moment, when the organisation to deal with shipping problems is being very rapidly expanded, there is much to be gained in efficiency by retaining that organisation for a further period within the Board of Trade, where it has the advantage of the existing legal, financial and establishment services and has not to dissipate energy in constructing a new machine to deal with these matters.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate the fact that it is easy to switch over the present machinery to a Ministry of Shipping; and is it not important to co-ordinate the whole of the activities of the Merchant Navy under a single head?

The Prime Minister: I think that, obviously, follows from what I said, that it is the intention of the Government to establish a Ministry of Shipping. What I endeavoured to convey was that there was a considerable process of expansion going on that would take perhaps a week or two longer, and that while that expansion is going on it is much better to keep it under the Board of Trade.

Mr. Loftus: Will the Ministry include the fishing fleet?

The Prime Minister: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. A. Edwards: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the increase in certain shipping shares, and will he give a warning to the investing public that there is to be no profiteering?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL SUPPLIES (PRODUCTION).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that in placing restrictions on normal production he will give sympathetic consideration to all forms of medical supplies and of supplies intended to relieve physical defects, including, in particular, high-tension batteries used in the latest implements for the deaf?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Member will appreciate that it is not possible to give any guarantee as to the treatment of any particular class of goods, but I

can assure him that every endeavour will be made to give due weight to every reasonable claim.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: May 1 take it that sympathetic consideration will also be given to other parts, such as cords, condensers, and other things required for the implements?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WHEAT IN STACK (RESERVES).

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will consider encouraging the retention of corn in ricks in order to create a further reserve supply of cereals foods which will be less liable to war damage?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I have been asked to reply. This question is already receiving consideration, and the hon. Member may be aware that in the general broadcast to farmers given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on 4th September, he urged upon them the desirability of retaining wheat in the stack as far as possible.

Mr. J. Morgan: Could the right hon. Gentleman not make it a little more concrete than that, and give farmers a ground for doing this, because it is important that he should be precise at this moment?

Mr. Morrison: As I say, the question is under consideration. A great many difficulties have to be surmounted in devising a scheme whereby due value to the community will result from a grant that is sufficiently great to provide an inducement to the farmers.

Mr. Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there is to be a scheme and that, therefore, he will want the farmers to stay their hands until such a scheme is produced?

Mr. Morrison: No, I cannot in the meantime say more than my right hon. Friend has already said. I can say, and have said, that the matter is under consideration, and as soon as I am in a position to make an announcement, I will do so.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that corn in ricks is subject to destruction by rats and mice?

Mr. Morrison: That is just one of the factors that make me say that it is doubtful whether at the present stage of our consideration due value to the community would result from a grant.

WAGES.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that he is fixing prices for agricultural products, he will bear in mind the need for a review of agricultural wage rates?

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): Agricultural wages are subject to the minimum rates fixed by the Agricultural Wages Committees established under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, and the Committees have full power to review the rates in force in their respective areas if and when they consider the circumstances so warrant.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give some direction to the Agricultural Wages Committees how they can handle this matter?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have no power to give directions to the committees.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether he intends to rely upon the existing machinery, or has he an amendment of the Act in contemplation?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I cannot make any definite reply to that question. At present, I think it is well to let the normal wages machinery function.

Mr. J. Morgan: In view of the fact that central organisations are being established to deal with all kinds of labour conditions, what is the objection to a central wages board being established at this time, to secure uniformity of terms for the farm worker?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: That raises a very big question, and I think it is well to let the present arrangements function.

Mr. Dalton: A very big question, a very small Minister.

GOVERNMENT PLANS.

Mr. J. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to out line in detail the steps he desires farmers and others to take, to take advantage of the present favourable season for certain food protection measures?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have already broadcast a general indication of the measures which the Government wish farmers to take, and in particular I have urged them to plough up at least 10 per cent. of their permanent grassland and sow it to suitable crops for next year's harvest. The detailed application of the Government's plans is a matter for the County War Executive Committees, who will be responsible for seeing that production is increased in their counties.

Mr. Morgan: Is the Minister aware that the question deals with the present situation and that many farmers are unable even to get feeding stuffs, because their credit position with the merchants is so unfortunate, and such matters as that? Has he nothing to offer them at this time to enable them to take action?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think the hon. Member is assuming rather a lot. Obviously, these questions are definitely under consideration, and I would ask him to remember that when all is said and done we have not been at war so very very long, and one cannot expect everything to be changed over absolutely at once. It may take weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT TRADE.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether active measures are con templated for the extension of the market for British goods in neutral countries where, before the outbreak of war, British exporters were prejudicially affected by subsidised German com petition?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in an answer to a question on Wednesday, 6th September, emphasised the vital importance which His Majesty's Government attach to the maintenance of export trade at the present time. Appropriate instructions have already been


sent to Commercial Diplomatic officers and Trade Commissioners overseas, and the attention of these officers was specially drawn to the importance of seizing all opportunities for developing our export trade in the light of present circumstances.

Sir P. Hannon: Will my right hon. Friend keep in touch with the various trade organisations in this country which are connected with overseas trade and give them all the encouragement and co-operation he can?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir; that is what I am endeavouring to do.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Government make it clear that if the manufacturers want to keep their export trade, they should not take advantage of the present position to raise prices unduly?

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC WARFARE.

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Economic Warfare whether he can give an assurance that vigorous measures are already in operation to prevent such commodities as tin, rubber and cotton reaching the hands of the enemy either by land or sea?

The Minister of Economic Warfare (Mr. Cross): Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTIVITY.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Supply what are the geographical areas that have been set up to secure increased productivity; the names of the people who are to be in charge of each area; is it intended to set up a national committee; and what are the arrangements that have been made to see that the national supply decisions are implemented?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Burgin): The country has been divided for the purpose mentioned into 13 areas, the boundaries of which conform generally to the areas of the Civil Defence regional organisation and other organisations, and area officers are in course of appointment. With regard to the third and fourth parts of the question, I hope to be in a position to make a full statement on these matters at an early date.

Mr. Smith: Is it intended to allow a certain amount of reasonable local responsibility within those areas, and is it intended that a policy of systematic decentralisation should be carried out, in order to avoid the mistake that was made in this matter on a previous occasion?

Mr. Burgin: I think I am alive to the history of the Ministry of Munitions, and I think I understand what the hon. Member is asking, but I should prefer, if he will allow me, to make a full statement later, as I have a rather comprehensive statement to make very shortly.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Supply what steps have been taken, or are to be taken, to increase the output of the most urgent supplies; on what basis is the organisation to be carried out; what arrangements have been made with the firms; is it intended to make certain firms controlled establishments; and what machinery has been set up with a view of securing the maximum output in the minimum of time?

Mr. Burgin: All firms and Government factories engaged on munitions production have been asked to proceed on the basis of the utilisation of their full capacity. As existing orders are completed fresh orders are being placed with the utmost rapidity, and in the meantime firms have been instructed to proceed. Additional firms are being employed in accordance with allocations worked out in peace time. Steps are being taken to expedite the construction of factories and plant, and additional new factories are being undertaken. It is not intended to make certain firms controlled establishments in the sense in which that term was understood in the last War, but the hon. Member will be aware of the powers of control conferred by the Ministry of Supply Act. The whole machinery of the Ministry of Supply is devoted to securing the maximum output in the minimum of time, and I have in hand certain reorganisations of, and additions to, the staff of the Ministry designed to facilitate the attainment of this object.

Mr. Smith: So that the position is that it is intended to control the men and not the firms? May I also ask whether the Minister is aware of the difficulties in regard to priorities that already exist; and, arising out of the statement made by


the War Cabinet, that it was essential that we should maintain our export trade, the manufacturers who are concerned about this have already had to give notice with regard to priorities; and further would the right hon. Gentleman assure the young men between 21 and 25 who are engaged in these industries that they are serving the nation in their present capacity as well as they would be in other ways?

Mr. Burgin: The hon. Member's supplementary questions range over a very wide field. I do not agree that there is an idea of controlling the men and not the firms. The term "controlled establishment" had a very definite meaning in the last War, and what I have said is that the powers taken under the Ministry of Supply Act enable control of the firms to be exercised in a different way, and they will be exercised where necessary. With regard to priorities, an elaborate priority machine, which, I think, is beginning to function very successfully— certainly it has already dealt with a great number of difficulties and given satisfaction—is at work and is daily being added to. With regard to young men serving, that raises a great question, but I am sure the whole House realises that people engaged on work of national importance in munition factories are serving their country very well in the work which they are doing and that to disturb them unduly would not be in the national interest.

Mr. John Wilmot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large number of smaller plants that have a contribution to make, whose output is not being fully used?

Mr. Burgin: A great many surveys of these plants have already been made. My postbag is very heavy with offers every day, and these are being considered to see whether some of the machinery and some of the skilled staff from a number of them could be grouped together in larger units and institutions. It is a little difficult to manufacture an immense programme by so decentralising that only very little is made in small places, but the idea is to recruit the best of the machinery and the best of the men and make a larger unit. That is under consideration, and where it is possible to subcontract on a component basis, that is being done.

Viscountess Astor: Is my right hon. Friend recruiting women for munition factories, because in the last War women were put in the factories so as to let men go to the Front?

Mr. Burgin: A large percentage of the semi-skilled work may ultimately have to be done by women.

Viscountess Astor: In the last War, was not skilled work done by women, and did they not learn in six months work which some of the unions said could only be learnt in years?

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: Would my right hon. Friend consider the formation of a machinery pool so that machinery can be allocated to firms that are engaged on munitions supply?

Mr. Burgin: There will be, if there is not already, a controller of machine tools, which will serve the purpose my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind.

Mr. Davidson: Does the speeding-up plan affect the Scottish contractors engaged on war-time service?

Mr. Speaker: Sir Alfred Knox.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of Order. Many Scottish contractors are engaged in war-time work, and surely a Scottish Member is entitled to ask the Minister whether Scottish firms are affected by any new scheme which the Government introduce. May I ask whether my supplementary was not in order?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have too many supplementary questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (MILITARY INFORMATION).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that the Dominions shall receive from the theatres of war, with the least possible delay, the necessary information on which to base their own organisation, equipment and military effort?

The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Eden): This matter is having the close attention of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
Every possible step is being taken to maintain close contact with the Dominion Governments and to keep them fully informed upon all aspects of the present situation.

Sir A. Knox: Can my right hon. Friend state what is the channel of communication? Does the information go direct from the War Office through the High Commissioners?

Mr. Eden: The channel is Dominions Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (CONVOCATION).

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the membership of Convocation of the University of London exceeding 17,000 graduates, he has considered giving relief by legislation to the authorities of Convocation from their statutory obligation of convening Convocation for the conduct of elections to the senate and other offices or for ordinary meetings during the present crisis?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): A Bill is already before the House giving the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge a general discretionary power to make emergency statutes and this power makes possible the suspension of normal statutory obligations. The most convenient way of meeting the difficulty raised by my hon. Friend would seem to be that the University of London, perhaps in common with other universities, should seek similar powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — POSTAL FACILITIES.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Postmaster-General, whether he can make a statement as to the present facilities for collection and delivery of letters; whether there will be any curtailment for the future; and give an indication for the guidance of the House and the public as to what departure from the normal there is or will be in the time taken for a given letter to reach its destination?

The Postmaster - General (Major Tryon): Postal work has been made more difficult by the calling up to the Colours of a large number of Post Office servants, by the rearrangements of train services and by the lighting restrictions. Some of the later deliveries and collections have been curtailed. In the London area the last two deliveries of the day have been combined into one beginning at 6 p.m. and night collections have been suspended after 7.30 p.m. The effect in the provinces is less marked. Until experience has been obtained of the working of the new railway time tables it is difficult to forecast the extent to which further rearrangements may be necessary, but I have no doubt that, while here and there some slowing down may be inevitable, it will prove possible to maintain generally a reasonably effective service. For instance, I would expect that letters posted in Central London before 5.30 p.m. will be delivered anywhere throughout England and Wales the following morning.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can offer any inducement in the way of increased grant to the local education authorities in connection with air-raid precautions work?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Anderson): As the hon. Member is aware, this question was reviewed by the Government a few weeks ago. I do not consider that present circumstances justify any alteration of the conclusions which were arrived at after the fullest consideration on that occasion.

Mr. Tomlinson: Is the Minister aware that the Board of Education have since issued a decree insisting that in neutral areas shelters and provision should be made for the children before the schools are reopened and, therefore, does not his promise to review this question in 1940 become of no value because of the expenditure having to be incurred prior to that date?

Sir J. Anderson: What I said was that I do not consider the present circumstances justify any alteration. It may well be the case that the financial relations between local authorities and the


Government may have to be looked at from time to time, but I suggest that this is not the moment for making piecemeal adjustments.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May we assume that the reply does not mean that my right hon. Friend is not unwilling to consider detailed adjustments for specific purposes?

Mr. Parker: asked the Home Secretary whether all London Transport employés working in places where they are likely to be exposed in the event of airraids will be issued with steel helmets; and whether suitable supplies of mustard ointment could be made directly available for their use?

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that the London Passenger Transport Board are providing steel helmets for such of their employés as are required to work in the streets during an air raid without the protection of a vehicle or building. Supplies of anti-gas ointment are to be provided as part of the equipment of first-aid parties and first-aid posts, and in first-aid boxes in wardens' posts, for the treatment of anyone who has been contaminated by gas, and I understand that the board are making no separate arrangements in respect of their own staffs.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Home Secretary whether local authorities will be advised, in overcrowded areas where there is an absence of adequate shelter, to make use of the playgrounds in empty schools, to provide air-raid shelters?

Sir J. Anderson: In areas where the children have been evacuated there is no reason why air-raid shelter should not be provided in school playgrounds, and I have no doubt that local education authorities will co-operate in this matter.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the difficulties in distressed areas, which have not the money to provide playgrounds, should not some extra assistance be given?

Sir J. Anderson: That is a much larger question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMER TIME.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to announce his decision with regard to extending the period of summer time?

Sir P. Harris: asked the Home Secretary whether he has come to any decision as to the extension of summer time; and whether he will bear in mind the great advantage to shopkeepers and their staffs whose windows will have to be darkened, and to the general public, if they have the advantage of some extra daylight?

Mr. VyVyan Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now reached a decision respecting the extension of summer time?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not yet in a position to announce a decision. If summer time is to be prolonged beyond 8th October, the question what should be the terminal date requires careful consideration, and inquiry into that question is still proceeding. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. V. Adams: Will my right hon. Friend, in making up his mind, bear in mind the important psychological value that springs from artificially extending daylight at the present time?

Sir J. Anderson: That is the kind of ground for considering the question.

Sir P. Harris: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to any conclusion will he consult trade organisations, particularly the retail trade and business people in the cities, as to the advantage of this very desirable change?

Sir J. Anderson: There are many interests and many points of view that have to be considered, and consultations are proceeding as rapidly as possible.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect to come to a decision next week?

Sir J. Anderson: I said shortly, and I prefer not to add to that.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my right hon. Friend consult farmers?

Oral Answers to Questions — PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (REOPENING).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the advisability of granting early permission for the reopening of the theatres and cinemas at any rate until black-out time, so as to afford that relaxation and entertainment to the people


at present being provided only by licensed premises and the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Sir J. Anderson: As my hon. Friend is aware, it has already been arranged for places of entertainment in neutral and reception areas to open, subject to the power of the chief officer of police to keep any particular premises closed. As regards relaxation of the prohibition in the remaining areas, or in some of them, I have the matter under close consideration and hope to be in a position to make a definite statement before the weekend.

Sir T. Moore: Will my right hon. Friend remember that cinemas are more fit for meeting places than public houses?

Mr. Gallacher: Does the Minister consider it desirable that police chiefs should completely prohibit the opening of cinemas in neutral areas, as is happening?

Sir J. Anderson: I think there may be local circumstances, not generally known, which make it desirable to take such action.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING).

Mr. Leslie: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now reached a decision on the advisability of issuing an order for the early closing of shops in the national interest, the saving of fuel and light, and to enable assistants to reach their homes within reasonable hours?

Sir J. Anderson: As I stated last week, I am looking into this question, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Leslie: Can the Minister give me any idea of when he may be in a position to make a statement?

Sir J. Anderson: Question 43 has been called.

Mr. Leslie: I asked only one supplementary question and surely I ought to have an answer to that?

Sir J. Anderson: I do not think it is for me to decide a point of that sort when another question has been called; but I would explain, if I may have the leave of the House, that I did say in my

original answer that the matter was being closely considered, and that I shall ensure, as far as lies in my power, that the decision is announced without unnecessary delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: asked the Home Secretary what are the present powers and duties of the Regional Commissioners?

Sir J. Anderson: The Regional Commissioners have now been charged by warrant with the responsibility of ensuring that the Civil Defence plans of the Government Departments and local authorities are properly co-ordinated. Under present conditions they are not invested with specific powers, but they are in a position to use their influence to secure the completion of local Civil Defence preparations and the smooth working of measures already in operation. As was indicated in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) on 7th February, in the event of a breakdown of communications the Regional Commissioners, in consultation with the Regional representatives of Government Departments, will exercise the powers vested in His Majesty's Government until communications have been satisfactorily reestablished.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the present democratic system of local authorities will function until such time as there is lack of communication?

Sir J. Anderson: I understand that the normal system is working, but that it has been most usefully and valuably reinforced by the addition of an emergency organisation held in constant readiness to function in the event of any interruption.

Mr. Lunn: Is it to be understood that the Minister has an overriding authority over these Regional Commissions?

Sir J. Anderson: Certainly.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Does not the Minister recognise the great confusion arising from the use of the words "Regional" and "Regional Commissioners," when the Minister of Health is always referring to the regionalisation of the Ministry of Health?

Sir J. Anderson: There should be no confusion. Regional Commissioners have been appointed, in circumstances which are well known to the House, for the 12 areas into which the country has been divided, and partly in consequence of that plan the arrangements by which the different Ministries concerned in Civil Defence carry out their local functions have been brought into line, so that the Ministry of Health and other Departments have a regional representative at the headquarters of each Regional Commission, and that makes for the elimination of delays.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister when the Government's proposals for the conscription of wealth in war-time, as already indicated by him, will be brought forward?

The Prime Minister: In his reply to the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) on 7th September, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he expected to make an announcement shortly on the subject of an emergency Budget. In the meantime I cannot make a further statement on the matters referred to by me in my statements on 26th and 27th April last.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL ADMINISTRATION (NON-MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the principle on which non-Ministerial appointments for civil administration are made; and whether he can give an assurance that the sole qualification is ability, and that political opinions or support for the parties in the National Government will be ignored?

The Prime Minister: It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that appointments of the kind described should be filled on the principles indicated in the second part of the question.

Mr. Garro Jones: How does the Prime Minister account for the fact that such a large proportion of chairmen of Conservative party organisations are appointed to these posts? In particular, may I ask whether he is aware that in Aberdeen the

chairman of a Conservative party organisation and a large fishing employer by no means distinguished for his impartiality has been appointed —

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Garro Jones: With great respect to you, I desire to ask for what reason I am not to be allowed to put this question?

Mr. Speaker: Question Time cannot be used for making derogatory remarks on individuals. They certainly would not be allowed in a question which was to be put on the Paper, nor can they be allowed in a supplementary question.

Mr. Garro Jones: I respectfully suggest that you did not let me complete my question.

Mr. Speaker: I had heard quite enough.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I put it in another form, and I will endeavour to bring myself within the Ruling which you have just given? I wish to ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that in Aberdeen the chairman of a Conservative party organisation, who is a large fishing employer, has been appointed to superintend the whole of the fish trade operations of the port, including superintendence of a large number of fishing trade employés with whom he has been in antagonistic negotiation for many years, and does he think that that is an effective way of securing collaboration?

The Prime Minister: I know nothing of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers, but I will undertake to say that when this appointment was made it was not because the gentleman in question was a supporter of the Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Prime Minister aware that reports are coming in regarding the alleged predominance of Conservative party appointments to posts of this kind, and will he give an assurance that no discrimination of that kind will be allowed?

The Prime Minister: I have already given such an assurance in my original answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Prime Minister what steps are to be taken to increase old age pensions, in view of the


national emergency and the fact that many thousands of pensioners are deprived of assistance from relatives who are now on active service?

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he can present a report on the investigation that was promised into the position of the old age and widow pensioners; is it intended to increase the pensions and, if so, from what date and by what amount?

The Prime Minister: As regards the first part of Question No. 48 I regret that the international situation last month and the subsequent outbreak of war made it impossible for the Government to complete the intended investigation. I am afraid that in this great emergency the question of any general increase in the rate of old age pensions must remain in abeyance for the time being. But I would point out that special machinery exists under which members of the Defence Forces may make allotments of pay to dependants and others, that in addition dependants' allowances are issuable from Service Votes under certain conditions, and that old age pensioners who can show that they are in need because they have suffered a substantial loss of other income owing to the war will be eligible for consideration under the national scheme for Prevention and Relief of Distress.

Mr. Stephen: Does the Prime Minister not realise the great hardship imposed upon old age pensioners and does he not consider the circumstances of the national emergency warrant a general increase to all old age pensioners now?

The Prime Minister: That is the same question again. I said that the Government have taken into consideration the possibility of hardship to old age pensioners and have tried to meet it by the various provisions I have made, and I think the House will see that in this present emergency a general increase in the flat rate of old age pensions must remain in abeyance.

Mr. E. Smith: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the absolute necessities of these people have already increased in price by Id., 2d. or 3d., and that in view of that accumulation the old age people are heartbroken; and will he therefore reconsider his decision?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow the House to vote freely on this question?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WAR AIMS.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are considering making a preliminary statement of war aims, including the liberation of the Czechs from German rule?

The Prime Minister: The war aims of His Majesty's Government can best be appreciated by reference to those principles which have been enunciated by them, and for the defence of which this country entered the War. These principles have commanded the support and approval of all sections in this country, and no doubt further opportunities for elaborating them in detail will occur. In answer to the last part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to my message to Dr. Benes in which I said that we looked forward, through the triumph of the principles for which we have taken up arms, to the release of the Czech people from foreign domination.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES (WAR SERVICES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements are being made for friendly refugees in this country to volunteer for some unit of the Fighting Services or Home Defence?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 4th September, special tribunals are being set up to review rapidly all cases of Germans, Austrians and Czecho-Slovakians, with a view to sifting out any who, though claiming to be refugees, may not in fact be friendly to this country. The intention is that use shall be made of the services of those who, as a result of this review, are classified as friendly to this country. Those who wish to serve in His Majesty's Forces will be registered, and may then be called up in limited numbers as and when required. Similarly, those who wish to serve in certain of the Civil Defence services will be enabled to register for this purpose. An announcement will be made later as to the steps to be taken by refugees who wish to offer their services, but the first step must be


to pass these cases under examination in accordance with the plan announced in the Home Secretary's statement.

Colonel Wedgwood: When are these tribunals likely to be set up? Next week?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give a date, but I know that it is intended to set them up as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman secure the reconsideration of the classification of Austrians as enemy aliens?

Mr. Morrison: The House will agree that in these matters discretion will be exercised in individual cases.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the position of American citizens who wish to enlist in the service of this country?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATH DUTIES (RELIEF).

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to consider the extension of Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1900, which relates to relief of Death Duties, to civilians who may be killed as a result of enemy action?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): The provision to which my hon. Friend refers is one of a series of provisions granting relief from Death Duties in respect of deaths on active service of members of the Armed Forces of the Crown and the Mercantile Marine, and my right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot see his way to entertain so wide an extension of the scope of the relief.

Mr. Dalton: Is it not clear that what will be required is a very substantial increase in Death Duties?

Sir W. Davison: Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that it would be a monstrous injustice that any man who had given his life for his country when engaged on any National Service should be fined in his estate for a supreme act of self-sacrifice? Might I have an answer to that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LIABILITIES.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to introduce legislation dealing with civil liabilities, especially liabilities for rent and rates, in the case of individuals who find their businesses completely dislocated by war conditions, as well as for those who have joined the armed forces?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I have been asked to reply. Legislation dealing with civil liabilities has already been passed, and I would refer the hon. Baronet to the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act and the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act. The working of these Acts and the whole problem referred to in the question will be kept under review.

Mr. T. Williams: What is to happen to persons who have long leases and whose businesses have been virtually detroyed by evacuation, or in other ways arising out of this development?

The Attorney-General: I quite agree that there are cases outside the Acts to which I have referred and which, as I have said, will be kept under review. I must add that I think the general experience during the last War was that many of these cases, if not most, were met by reasonable release from their obligations of those who were concerned. It is very important that those who are concerned should take all steps possible to release such people from obligations which press unduly upon them. I said in my original answer that the whole problem is being kept under review.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Why do we not have a moratorium as we had in the last War?

The Attorney-General: There is, in a sense, a moratorium, in respect of the execution of judgments under the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman who put the question had in mind merely the question of delay but the question of the actual liabilities.

Mr. J. Wilmot: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware not only that the liability will still remain but that many persons, because of their public service, are facing virtual bankruptcy and that


landlords are not displaying the public spirit to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred?

An Hon. Member: Some are.

The Attorney-General: I quite agree. I think I made it clear that the Act to which I referred does not go into the matter of contractual liability. I do not think I can add to my previous answer, which recognises the existence of these cases and assures the House that this problem is under review.

Sir P. Harris: If I put the question again in a week's time will a fuller reply be given on behalf of the Government?

The Attorney-General: I do not think I could give that assurance. The problem is one of great complexity and raises points other than those which have been suggested. I do not think I can go to-day beyond the assurance which I have given.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give special consideration to the cases of men who have been called to the Colours and who have liabilities for insurance premiums which they are unable to meet by reason of the fact that they have not now the same income as they had before they joined up?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the course of business?

The Prime Minister: I think it will meet the convenience of the House if the Adjournment is moved immediately after Questions. I shall then make my general statement on the present situation. Afterwards, I understand, the Opposition desire to raise questions affecting the Ministry of Information and the Ministry of Supply. We then desire to obtain the second, third, and fourth Orders on the Paper. I presume that the House will not wish to sit late this evening, and I, therefore, hope that the Debate on the Adjournment will be concluded by such time as will allow us to take the Second

Readings of the three Bills to which I have referred. The House will meet tomorrow at the usual hour of 2.45 p.m., when we shall take the Second Reading of the Control of Employment Bill and consider outstanding business. On Friday, we shall meet at Eleven o'clock in the morning and take the remaining stages of the Control of Employment Bill.

Mr. Stephen: On the Motion for the Adjournment, will it be possible to have some discussion also on evacuation, in view of the difficulties which have arisen in many districts and the need for something being done to relieve the situation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member will appreciate that it is not for me to say what is in order on the Adjournment.

Mr. McGovern: May I make a representation to the Prime Minister about the very serious state of affairs existing in many parts of Scotland, where women and children have been lying on concrete floors and in outhouses and have not been properly fed, with the result that there has been wholesale return to their homes in great dissatisfaction; and ask whether he thinks a situation of that kind does not call for urgent consideration and Debate?

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Will it be possible on the Adjournment to deal with some of the points relating to evacuation?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows quite well that on the Motion for the Adjournment almost anything may be raised which does not need legislation to deal with it.

Mr. Garro Jones: On business, does the Prime Minister recollect that the question was raised whether the House will, for the convenience of hon. Members, sit at Twelve o'Clock on everyday, and has any decision been arrived at on that point?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which has been discussed through the usual channels. I understand that the arrangement arrived at is that, for the present, we shall carry on as usual.

THE WAR SITUATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Captain Margesson.]

3.51 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The House will have learnt from the communiquéissued last night that the Supreme War Council met for the first time yesterday, on French soil. I think it is fitting that I should begin my progress report this week with an account of the meeting. It was attended, as the House knows, by Lord Chatfield and myself for Great Britain, and by M. Daladier and General Gamelin for France. The representatives of both countries were accompanied by a number of officials, but, as we were already in close touch with the French authorities on technical strategic questions, it was not intended to discuss such questions at the meeting, and the Chiefs of Staff were not, therefore, on this occasion summoned to attend. The object of the meeting was to make possible, at the earliest practicable stage in the war, a direct and personal exchange of views. The present situation was fully examined and the measures to be taken in the immediate future were discussed. Further meetings will be arranged as and when necessary, in order to ensure that the closest possible contact is maintained between our two countries on all major aspects of the conduct of the war.
The meeting began in the morning and was supplemented by further conversations in the afternoon. The House will not expect me to give a detailed account of the many subjects discussed; and to do so would not be in the public interest.
There is, however, one important matter to which I can properly and usefully refer. As was natural, there was an exchange of views at an early stage in the conference on the present state of public opinion in the two countries. I am glad to be able to assure the House that it is evident that public opinion on the two sides of the Channel is completely in accord. The people of France and the people of Great Britain are alike determined not only to honour to the full their obligations to Poland, but also to put an end, once for all, to the intolerable strain of living under the perpetual threat of Nazi aggression. Our French allies are, like ourselves, a peace-loving people, but

they are no less convinced than are we that there can be no peace until the menace of Hitlerism has been finally removed. "II faut en finir."
For the rest, I may tell the House that I came away from this meeting fortified and encouraged by the complete identity of views which was revealed between the French Government and ourselves on every point of policy and strategy which we discussed. I need hardly stress to the House my own sense of the immense value of these personal contacts, which enable that mutual confidence to be established without which there can be no real harmony of action.
Let me now give the House a short account of the present situation in the Empire, in Europe and the several theatres of war.
Day by day fresh evidence reaches us of the determination of the peoples of the British Commonwealth overseas. Hon. Members will have read during the last day or two speeches by Dominion Prime Ministers and other leaders making this determination manifest. But it is not only by words that this resolve is shown: it is by deeds also. I cannot, of course, give the House details of all the measures of defence which have been adopted in the over sea parts of the Empire, but I can say that, both in the military and in the civil sphere, steps which in some cases are of a far-reaching character have been taken. These steps are all directed to one end— the pursuit of a common purpose, the fulfilment of a common task.
An increasing number of foreign States have declared their neutrality, but in no case has this led to any relaxation of the armed vigilance which now characterises Europe and is the direct result of the Nazi menace to our common civilisation.
For the moment, the Eastern theatre of war is still the main centre of operations. The Germans appear to be endeavouring to force a decision in this theatre before they are compelled to transfer formations to the West to meet the threat of Allied intervention. With this object in view, they have continued their relentless pressure on the Polish Army, hoping thereby to break resistance and to turn a hardly-contested withdrawal into a retreat. That these hopes have been so far frustrated is due to the indomitable spirit of the Poles, who refuse to be intimidated by


the weight of material brought against them or by the overwhelming superiority of the German Air Force.
In the West the French Armies have begun a methodical advance. Hitherto, these operations have been local, with the object of straightening out the line and gaining contact with the main enemy positions. This is an essential and important preliminary phase, about which the French are naturally reticent, and it is sufficient to say that it has been completely successful.
Certain statements have been made to the effect that the British Expeditionary Force has already been engaged in France. These statements are not strictly accurate, and are principally the result of the highly imaginative reports of foreign correspondents, over whose activities we, unfortunately, have no control. Nevertheless, it is true that British troops are already in France, though they have not been in action. When this happens, as full information as the exigencies of the military situation permit will at once be issued.
In the air the normal work of reconnaissance and patrol has been continuous, and a number of Royal Air Force Squadrons are now operating from French soil.
Further successful reconnaissance flights over Germany have been carried out by the Bomber Command in this country, and much useful information has been gained, in the course of these flights, of activities behind the German frontier.
Defensive patrols proceed continuously, and the Higher Command remains in a state of instant readiness.
The Coastal Command have continued to carry out extended reconnaissance and anti-submarine patrols, and a number of attacks have been carried out against enemy submarines.
On the seas, the outbreak of the war found the active Fleet fully prepared and the Reserve Flect mobilised, but that did not include the whole of the very numerous auxiliaries which when war begins have to be brought forward to complete our sea power. These forces are now passing rapidly into service.
The Fleet has been joined by three destroyers of the Polish Navy, which have proved to be very efficient and are taking

part in the strenuous life of our light forces.
The main object of the British Navy must be, as in the last War, to ensure the freedom and safety of the seas. During the War of 1914–18, and particularly in 1917, the German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare created, as is well known, a situation which was at one time very serious. In the present war, the German attack upon our merchant shipping, begun by an act of ruthlessness against a passenger ship contrary to all the rules of maritime warfare and the Convention that Germany herself had signed, is being continued. A certain number of British merchant ships has been sunk, and our losses have undoubtedly been somewhat severe. This is only what had to be expected, for the reason that the war came at a moment when large numbers of our merchant vessels were scattered over the Seven Seas, moving under peace conditions. On the other hand, the Germans had placed their U-boats and their supply ships previous to the outbreak of war in the best strategic positions and it is not surprising that some of our vessels have been caught and surprised by submarines before they were able to reach port.
It is impossible to apply the convoy system while many of the ships to be convoyed are still on the high seas. We are, however, pressing on with putting that system into force and it is daily operating with ever increasing efficiency. In the last war out of some 16,500 vessels which were convoyed to and from this country on the Atlantic, only 102 or .6 per cent. were sunk by submarine action while on convoy. But the convoy system was only applied in the summer of 1917 after we had been at war for nearly three years. That is not the case to-day. The convoy system is being applied immediately and as soon as it is in full working order I have no reason to suppose that it will prove to be less decisive than it was 20 years ago. Meanwhile, I can assure the House that submarines are being constantly attacked and that successes have been achieved.
At the outbreak of war the total German tonnage of ships at sea or in neutral or allied ports, Baltic ports excepted, was in the neighbourhood of 1,105,000 tons. Practically all that ship-


ping has now been cleared off the high seas, some has been captured and much of it has interned itself in neutral ports. Moreover, the supply to Germany of vital war materials carried under neutral flags has been, and will increasingly be, limited by the contraband control imposed by the power of our Fleet.
In the statement which I made to the House on the 7th of September, I said that the organisation of the Civil Defence Services was being rapidly completed. This process has continued, and steps are being taken to deal with the various problems inseparable from the rapid mobilisation of personnel in an entirely novel form of national defence.
It was, of course, essential at the outset of the emergency to call up everyone available for whole-time service to man the home defence front. It has, I know, been suggested that as a result, in the absence of any call as yet to meet actual attack from the air, we have unnecessarily immobilised a considerable mass of man-power. I would, however, remind the House that if our Civil Defence organisation is to be effective, it is inevitable that a sufficient nucleus of men and women should be kept at "Action Stations "—standing by cannot be avoided. We are, however, endeavouring to ease the position in various ways and are considering how best we can minimise dislocation while still maintaining Civil Defence on an adequate wartime footing.
There are one or two specific matters on which I think it may be desirable that I should give hon. Members some further information. Take first lighting restrictions. It is said, and said with truth, that the lighting restrictions at present in force cause personal inconvenience, that they are dangerous to traffic, and that they slow up important elements in the productive processes of the country. But they are, in fact, required on strategic grounds, and they form part of the strategic defence of the important industrial areas of the country and all their details are the result of long experiments carried out by the Royal Air Force. The air staff are equally interested in reducing to the minimum any slowing down or interference with production, and if the existing restrictions appear irksome, it

must be accepted that they are, for the moment, inevitable.
The whole preparations of Civil Defence, whether lighting restrictions, warnings, or mobilisation of personnel are conditioned by the speed with which hostile air attack can develop. There is, for example, general agreement that buildings should be "blacked out" in advance. Preparations for "blacking out" at the last moment would be too late. The "black out" restrictions apply for the present to the more remote areas as well as to the big cities. It is not that those remote areas are themselves likely to be attacked, but the lighting they give would be a signpost to built-up areas which might be of greater military importance.
Somewhat different considerations apply to the restrictions on moving vehicles and on the use of pocket torches and small lamps by pedestrians as aids to movement. I think the House will be glad to hear that some relaxation in these respects is considered practicable and the necessary instructions are in preparation.
Many of the complaints about the lighting restrictions and also the warning system are influenced by the fact that up to the present we have not had air raids. It would be very dangerous to make any drastic modification of these strategic preparations until actual air-raid experience has indicated the lines upon which modifications might safely be made.
The movement of evacuation which was started on Friday, 1st September, was completed with the evacuation of Jarrow, Hebburn and Sunderland on the 10th and nth September. Experience so far shows that the billeting of unaccompanied school children has given rise to much less difficulty than the billeting of mothers and young children. A very heavy demand has been made on the energy and initiative of the receiving local authorities and on the good will of the householders in the receiving areas. There has been a remarkable response to the demands thus made and there is every indication that the process of settling in is now taking place satisfactorily in a great majority of cases. Needless to say, a movement on this scale raises a large number of social problems. Active steps are being taken by the local authorities in this matter, and the Min-


ister of Health and the President of the Board of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland will continue to cooperate in a solution of these problems.
In order to afford to the parents of school children who had not taken part in the movement a further opportunity, arrangements were made to enable these parents to register their children at schools on Monday and Tuesday of this week. No immediate further evacuation move is, however, in contemplation, as the receiving areas must be given time to assimilate the present large influx of population, and all concerned must have time to digest the experience already gained.
As I stated last week, some 200,000 hospital beds were made available by various means for the reception of civilian air-raid casualties. These beds, of course, are also available for Service sick and casualties and a certain proportion of them are now in use for this purpose.
It is also part of our scheme that these hospitals should continue to admit ordinary acute surgical or medical cases amongst the general population. This "reflux" is now taking place and will continue. There are therefore facilities available to ensure that any patient whose medical condition requires in-patient treatment shall be able to obtain it. These cases will naturally encroach upon the number of beds immediately available for the reception of casualties, but this is being met by increasing the numbers of extra beds, by pressing forward with the building of hutted wards, and by providing further temporary accommodation in large tents. The net result is that in spite of fresh admissions the number of beds immediately available on 12th September has been maintained at the figure of 200,000.
Furthermore, we have asked that outpatient facilities for the ordinary civilian sick should be maintained and this is being done. The first-aid posts, both fixed and mobile, have been in general duly established and equipped and the emergency ambulances have been assembled and fitted up. Motor coaches in the provinces as well as in London have been converted for use as inter-hospital ambulances. The full complement of casualty evacuation trains for civilian cases has been assembled and staffed and provided with medical equipment.
Some shortage of extra beds, bedding, dressings and surgical equipment has been reported from a number of places, but this is being met as rapidly as possible by accelerating the delivery of goods on order, by the diversion of supplies from places more favourably situated and by placing fresh orders. In particular surgical instruments are now being delivered in considerable numbers and others have been obtained on loan from hospitals and surgeons having a surplus available.
Finally, I propose to say a few words about a matter which will be fully debated later in the day—the creation and work of the Ministry of Information. The Lord Privy Seal will make a detailed statement in due course, and I do not intend to anticipate the things he will have to say. There are, however, one or two general points to which I desire to invite the attention of the House.
The work of the Ministry of Information is the most difficult type of work that can be assigned to a Government Department. Such a Ministry must continually seek to steer between giving information which might help the enemy to defeat and destroy our own troops and withholding information with the risk of creating an impression that terrible things may be happening of which the public has no knowledge.
In the second place, a Ministry of Information is necessarily a Department which cannot begin its real work in any real sense until the outbreak of war and then, at a moment's notice, it has to spring into the fullest activity. It is scarcely to be expected that in the face of such formidable difficulties as these errors will not be made and some of them will be serious enough to cause trouble and exasperation to the whole Press. I greatly regret such incidents and I should like now to express my appreciation of the patriotic way in which the Press generally in this country has co-operated with the Government and sought to play its part in the common struggle.
I have already declared to the House the desire and intention of the Government to give the fullest possible information to the public and to do all that we can to prevent any feeling in the minds of the public that they are being kept in the dark. That is the principle to which, through the Ministry of Information, we


shall seek to give effect. Improvements in the machinery can, I have no doubt, be made, and the Debate to-day may help us to discover what some of these improvements should be. But I feel that in these early days I am entitled to ask the House and the country for patience and toleration while we are endeavouring to correct what has gone wrong and to build up a satisfactory and efficient service.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I should like, if I may, on behalf of Members on all sides of the House, to thank the Prime Minister for the statement that he has made, and more particularly for the statement he made with regard to our determination to fulfil our undertakings to Poland and to seek no peace until the final end of the Nazi domination. That, the Prime Minister has expressed in the most emphatic terms this afternoon, and it will, I think, allay some of the suspicions and rumours which have in recent days been floating round the world.
The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech, referring to the Ministry of Information, asked for patience and tolerance. I think I can say that in recent weeks I have exercised both patience and tolerance, but there are occasions when one must be a little firm, not at all to weaken the hands of a trembling Government, but to strengthen them, and I propose this afternoon to be a candid friend. The right hon. Gentleman has repeated rather more specifically the assurances that he gave last week, that it is the desire of the Government to publish, as early and as fully as possible, all the information which can properly be made available to the public here and abroad. I look back upon last week. I take the exploit in the Keil Canal where the announcement, after infinite delay, gave no meaning whatever to the people of this country of the glory of this exploit. A few days ago the Prime Minister did make a reference to it in terms, which, I think, we all appreciate. A day later the Ministry of Information allowed to leak out more about this incident. This apparently isolated incident is the one real incident which has proved the possible value and the determination of the Air Force of this country, and it is due to the Air Force as

well as to the public that that magnificent exploit, undertaken under conditions of the most dangerous kind, should have been made public at the very earliest opportunity. The right hon. Gentleman this afternoon has admitted that they have made mistakes. Last week, nearly a week ago—I would not say quite a white sheet but a little soiled—he said, "We hope to do better in the future."
But I must remind the House of the events of this week, because we are arriving now at a completely intolerable situation. I am well documented this afternoon. I have here the whole story of the events of Monday night and the early hours of Tuesday morning with regard to the news issued in France about the presence of British troops on French soil. The treatment of that story created, among large numbers of people in the publishing trade of this country, consternation, dismay, confusion, and an enormous amount of expenditure which was really unwarranted. I happen to possess here an actual copy of the front page of one paper which was available before midnight on Monday night. I shall go into details in this case, because I want to show how bad the machine is at this present time. The "Daily Express," in its last edition in the morning, explaining why people may not have received their edition of that paper—which is not, let me say, one of my normal means of entertainment at breakfast time—issued this explanation:
At 1.45 this morning police made a round of Fleet Street newspaper offices, wholesale newsagents, demanding the withdrawal of all newspapers containing news of the arrival of British troops in France. This news had been authorised for publication by the Ministry of Information at 8.52 last night to the ' Daily Express.' At 11.15 the Press Association and Reuters Agency also announced that they were authorised by the Ministry to publish similar information. Twice during the day Paris radio broadcast the news of the presence of the British troops in France.
At 11.38 p.m. newspaper offices were thrown into confusion by a Ministry of Information announcement withdrawing their authorisation to print the news. By this time hundreds of thousands of copies of the ' Daily Express ' and other newspapers had been printed and despatched for distribution to all parts of the country. Representations were immediately made to the Ministry of Information without avail. Then at 1.45 an inspector of police called at the ' Daily Express ' offices. He informed us that his orders were to seize all copies of newspapers containing mention


of the British troops in France. The inspector was asked under what powers he purported to act. He replied that he had no information other than the instructions he had received from Scotland Yard.
Meanwhile, the circulation manager of the 'Daily Express' was receiving reports that police were seizing newspapers at railway-termini. Other reports showed that trains were being stopped at intermediate stages and "their parcels unloaded. Newspaper vans were held up in the streets of London. After the police inspector's visit the 'Daily Express' prepared a special edition omitting all reference to the British troops in France. This edition had been printing for 20 minutes, when a further bulletin was issued by the Ministry of Information. It was timed at 2.55 a.m. and once more released the news.
That is what occurred to a paper produced in London. The same was true in the Provinces. Individuals going home late at night by car were stopped by the police and asked if they had a newspaper. If they had and they had read the news, and no doubt that particular news was contained in that newspaper, it was forthwith confiscated. I am not blaming the Ministry of Information, but I am blaming the lack of central direction and definite control. I am not surprised that newspapers yesterday had leading articles in which the word "muddle" was used. This is a muddle of the worst possible kind, and we are entitled to know who was responsible. This is not intelligent censorship. Monday night's proceedings were an extraordinary example of crass stupidity and vacillation, which I hope will not be repeated during the course of the war. Such a mistake cannot again be forgiven. What has happened is that somebody or some people have made fools of the British Press and the B.B.C. and have treated the people of this country as though they were children. This conduct is also serving to bring us into ridicule abroad. On this side of the House it has been said on many occasions that nobody is more anxious than we are about the effective prosecution of the war, but mess and muddle of this kind will not do.
I come now to what occurred last week. The tone of the House or the tone of the purlieus of the Chamber last Wednesday was much like that of the previous Saturday, though not on the same scale. I listened to stories about the supposed air raid on the East Coast from people who knew somebody who had told them that they knew for certain that German bombs had fallen over Chelmsford, Colchester,

Ipswich and Bristol. As I listened to these stories I came to the conclusion that half Britain had been bombed by the Germans, and yet no German bomb has dropped in this country up to this very moment. This creates a serious situation. Countless half-truths breed rumours, and rumours breed unnecessary unhappiness and raise quite groundless fears. To-day, members of families are separated from one another on a scale hitherto unknown. There are people in this House and on the staff of this House who have relatives where this great exploit of last Wednesday was said to have taken place. Imagine their feelings. Imagine the feelings of people who hear that there has been a raid at XYZ. Imagine the fears of people now who are unable to distinguish one kind of aeroplane from another and who whenever they see an aeroplane perhaps say to themselves: "That must be a German aeroplane." This sort of thing is creating a situation which is undermining, and will continue to undermine, the confidence of the people in the Government. It is not for me, sitting on this side of the House, to do much to prop up the Government, although I am prepared to do all I can to prop up the cause, but I warn the Government that if this sort of thing is not stopped the Government will be playing with the most tricky thing in the country, the psychology of the people. Therefore, I hope that this sort of situation will not occur again.
The Prime Minister has given us an undertaking about his desire, and I do not question his sincerity in the matter, to see that the fullest news should be given. But we have had one folly followed by another. We have had the Ministry of Information censoring news issued by its own Department. We have had news released, then an order countermanding the release, and, finally, the news has been released again. I am even told that a Royal Proclamation published to the world from the steps of the Royal Exchange was banned by the censor. This, in a way perhaps, may be a mild example of stupidity, but I want to know by what authority a censor should blackout a statement made on behalf of His Majesty. This black-out is going further. The official news from Paris is blacked-out in this country by the censor, and the world knows what we do not know. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory


situation. I am not blaming the Ministry of Information. The right hon. Gentleman's new Department, created on paper before the war and beginning to operate after the opening of hostilities, must have time to find its feet, but that is not the real difficulty.
The real difficulty, as I see it, is that the Fighting Services appear to be a law unto themselves in this matter. I have a document here—I am not going to read it although I am not afraid of the Official Secrets Act—which shows that the absurdities of Monday night were really due to one person, the Secretary of State for War. I say that he has no right to override the Ministry of Information. Therefore, we come to what is really the root of the trouble. I am as anxious to get over the trouble as anyone. I am not making mischief for mischief's sake. The truth is that there is no really effective co-ordination between the Fighting Services and the Ministry of Information. That co-ordination we ought to have in the national interest with the utmost expedition. It comes to this, that the final responsibility must rest in the hands of one Minister, and he must not be a Minister responsible for one of the Fighting Services; he must be the Minister of Information, who, as I conceive it, acting daily, should be in daily contact with the heads of the Fighting Services and work in conjunction with a reputable, responsible and experienced journalist of the first quality. Out of that kind of common discussion there should be a decision which once taken should be irrevocable; and then we should not have this delay and vacillation. I imagine that unless something is done along these lines these incidents, for which the Government as a Government must take the responsibility, but which collectively they know nothing about, will tend to continue.
But there is even a more serious side to this problem than the home problem, and that is the problem of the foreign and Dominion Press. The world is agog for news. If they cannot get it from this country they will get it elsewhere; and if they cannot get news they will take rumours and propaganda. I have received representations from many responsible quarters, from the Press of neutral countries, and the Press of the Dominions and the United States. All these people

are complaining that what messages they are receiving they are getting far too late to be of any use in their newspapers. Numbers of people in this country who are quite friendly to us, like representatives of the Scandinavian papers, are ceasing to cable their newspapers because their messages are invariably too late to be used and they really cannot afford to waste the money. A number of special correspondents well known in the newspaper world are seriously considering now moving from London to some neutral capital because of the difficulties they meet with here. Another difficulty is the regulation which insists that in their despatches they shall use English and French alone. For many neutral correspondents that means enormous delay. When the message is received it means further delay in re-translation, and in that double process of translation and re-translation the possibility of making mistakes is increased. I should have thought it would have been possible to have had censors who understand the language of these countries which are most nearly involved in this struggle.
The result of all this is important. The newspapers of neutral countries, some of them friendly to us, are relying now on German sources of information because they can get what is called news in plenty of time and in plenty of quantity. That means that during the last week in these early stages of the war, when it was desirable that we should mobilise on our side the moral influence of all the neutral countries of the world, the streams of world information are being polluted by German propaganda. Through the absence of vigorous action here and courage on our part, Hitler propaganda, in the guise of news, is now poisoning world opinion against us, and giving to neutral countries an entirely false view of the actual situation both here and abroad. German propaganda depends on lies. They live by lying to their own people. They are lying now to the world. It is the definite and deliberate policy of Herr Hitler to lie, and when he lies he never tells a little one. It is all part of his strategy—if you tell a lie, tell a big one. That policy we are now allowing him to implement. They have no regard for truth. Everyone knows that our case is simple, straightforward and unanswerable, and in the ebb and flow of the struggle it ought to be told fully to the world. I say that


we should tell the truth, whatever it may be, because it is one way of fortifying the temper and the spirit of our people. It will do them no harm to hear the worst, should the worst befall, and it will encourage them to hear achievements when they come.
I realise the difficulties of this problem of the censorship and the spread of information, and in what I have said about a complete disclosure of the truth, I put two qualifications. I admit that it is right and proper, and indeed the duty of the Government, to check information about war incidents before the facts are put before the public. That, I say, should be done in the interest of truth so that the people will not be misled. I think we shall all agree with the statement that nothing should be published which could be of use and advantage to the enemy. Subject to these considerations there can be no reason, I think, against the immediate publication of the events of the war. That should be done by the Press and the B.B.C. from hour to hour and from day to day. Beyond that, I think the Prime Minister should regularly and frequently, as I understand he is prepared to do come to the House, not with a recital of individual incidents but, as he has done to-day, to give us a broad, co-ordinated survey of the developments of our activities and operations in all the various fields of national activity concerned with the prosecution of the war.
Now I should like to refer to an important problem arising out of this situation. If I have spoken strongly, I think it will not do those concerned any harm. I come to a further point which is to me of very vital importance, that is the relations between Members of the Government, especially Members of the War Cabinet, on the one hand, and the rest of us, both on the Government Benches and on these, who are not directly sharing responsibilities. We are now engaged in developing a war-time technique for Parliament and endeavouring to maintain it as a living institution playing its proper part in this great struggle. I think it is important that we should be clear where we stand. Whilst the Labour party maintains its complete independence, and will continue to do so, and will preserve its integrity—I am not drawing party distinctions to-day; the distinction that I

am drawing is one of functions. I am drawing a distinction between those who are bearing the burden of responsibility in office and those who are not. Those who are carrying the responsibilities of office, in the nature of things, cannot be as fully in touch with public opinion as those of us who are not carrying those responsibilities, and those of us who are out of office, wherever we sit, not in any unfriendly spirit, come here as the spearhead of the British people. It is our responsibility. Without carrying this load of administrative work it is our business honestly, sincerely and fearlessly to represent to the Government, preoccupied with major tasks, what we believe to be the spirit and the attitude of the British people.
In this Mother of Parliaments we are looking to you, Sir, to preside over us at frequent and regular intervals so that this institution of free expression and discussion shall maintain a vigorous life and represent the authentic voice of our people. I think this is something which may govern our procedure in the future. I conceive the functions of the House to be twofold, first to hear statements by the Prime Minister and the Government and, if necessary, to debate them and question them, and by that means to keep in touch with the ever changing situation, listening with sympathy and with understanding, trying to bring to bear upon the statements, the legislation and the proposals made by the Government what we honestly conceive to be the views of the British public on whom this Parliament depends. Secondly, it falls on us who are close to the heart of the people, closer than those who are submerged by all the problems which are confronting them—I am not saying anything derogatory of Members of the War Cabinet; I am speaking of the nature of the situation—to take the initiative, as responsible public representatives, in raising discussions, to en lighten the Government, to bring home to them the questions that are troubling the minds of the people and to do our best to avoid the Government falling into difficulties. Within the last week, goodness knows, it has fallen into enough with the Ministry of Information, and I think we would with one accord do all we could to rescue them from having to come to the House to apologise for mistakes. I believe that in this way Parliament —a


hated symbol to Hitler—will grow in power during this war and will not become an atrophied organ of an effete body. That, I think, is to our advantage, because it will mean that, without sacrificing principle or parry loyalty, each of us in honesty will bring to bear what we can to the national cause and the cause of liberty.
I wish to refer to one other question, reference to which was made by the Prime Minister, this issue of our industrial productivity. The Minister of Supply gave us warning only a few days ago that we have to contemplate—I hope he has realised the scale—a colossal increase in output of all kinds, and we are faced now with that problem. On the Second Reading of the Military Service Bill, which we supported, I set out what we thought were the necessary corollaries of the passage of that Bill, and now we are being faced with all that is involved in this enormously increased output. I have a feeling that this task is not being faced with vigour and that, unless we act swiftly and courageously, and perhaps in new ways, based on the experience of the last Great War, the Government may find itself faced with a crisis like the shell crisis of the last War, and it would be a crime if we did not now take every step to avoid terrible loss of life because there are fighting men who have nothing with which to fight. In the circumstances of modern warfare the requirements of munitions of war of all kinds will out-run many times the standards of use, destruction and replacement of the last Great War. I suggested, I think with the approval of Members on all sides of the House, that we can have no profiteering in this war. We can have no war fortunes made. At this moment plunder is going on on a large scale. In lots of small shops there are acts of petty pilfering but, big and small, the people of the country are being exploited individually, and the nation is being exploited as a whole. One of the key industries of the country, which anyone who knows anything about war conditions will appreciate, is the machine tool industry. That industry to-day is making profits which are a national crime. Steps should be taken immediately—because other issues are involved in this—to end any possibility of this kind of crime.
On this matter, I have spoken with leaders of industry, who do not hold my political faith, who are not what would be called Socialists—indeed, even in wartime, I think they would feel it a dreadful thing to be called Socialists—and I find on all hands, and based on the experience of the last war, that the needs of the time now demand full and complete control of all the key industries of this country. Only to-day I saw a letter which shocked me. It stated that 5,000 skilled men, called up a few weeks ago in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, have been kicking their heels all that time. Those men's services are needed in skilled production of aircraft and munitions. That is not using the national resources properly. We want to see our labour resources wisely and properly used, but we want also to see the capital resources of this country wisely and properly used; and, therefore, we must have this concentration. I do not say there should be the bureaucracy in Whitehall, for that is not the way we produced munitions when we got wise in the last War. There was decentralisation. But there must be a centralised policy, even if it be locally administered. That is fundamental now.
It is all right for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that he is getting letters from people and building up lists of people. There ought to have been a year ago a census of the machinery and plant in every factory of this country. That was how it was built up in the last War. You may look to your big firms, but they cannot handle the problem, and you will have to look to the smaller firms. They have all to be mobilised and brought into the picture, each producing according to its particular plant, skill, machinery, and so forth. These great changes which the Government will have to face—and make no mistake about it, they had better be faced sooner rather than later, for otherwise we shall lose valuable time—will have very far reaching repercussions on the workers of this country. I warn the Minister of Supply and I warn the Government that, before they start on a general policy of expansion of output on a big scale, which may involve the hours, conditions, status and future lives of the workers of this country, they had better enter into discussions with the trade unions and the employers' organisations before they lift a finger. I say


that with some experience of what happened during the last War, and I say it because I wish now to stake out a claim. We believe that in all the big problems—and there are many—which will have to be solved in the immediate future, labour must be in on the ground floor; organised industrial labour must be in at the beginning, not merely because the question of labour supplies is involved, but because organised labour has a contribution to make to the wider aspects of the question, an experience which in war-time, and indeed in peacetime, ought not to be ignored. Let me say—and I think I can say this with some authority—that the trade union movement of this country is in no mood to be regarded as a poor relation of industry. It claims equality in the direction of policy, as well as in its administration, with the employers and with the State Departments concerned. I say that not as criticism but as what I hope will be regarded by the Government as good advice.
Finally, it is our duty at the earliest possible stage to point to defects. We are always glad to get honest admissions. In the piping days of peace, no Government ever makes a mistake, but in times of war the strain of honesty does appear. It is for all of us to point to defects and mistakes so that they may be remedied— not exploited for mischief-making ends, but remedied. It is equally our duty to urge speedy action on the Government if we feel that they are flagging. That is why, this afternoon, I have raised two questions both of which are fundamental issues. First, I have spoken of the question of censorship and the Ministry of Information, which is a question of the maintenance of the moral and spirit of confidence in the people. That is vital. I hope that, whenever we feel that is being threatened or in the least undermined, we shallcome to the House and tell the Government. Secondly, I have spoken of what is going to be one of the most gigantic problems the country has ever faced—and I have all sympathy with the Ministry of Supply—the problem of the organisation of our industrial resources for the effective prosecution of the war. I have spoken at some length because I feel it is important to bring these matters before the House, and I hope that we shall always do this, in regard to the problems which are uppermost in our

minds, as our contribution to the common weal.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I should like to join in the tribute of thanks which the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition paid to the Prime Minister for his statement this afternoon. That statement was rendered notable by the Prime Minister's account of the first meeting of the Supreme War Council. It was gratifying to all of us to know that all the major aspects of the conduct of the war were discussed, that complete identity of views prevailed, and that there will be harmony in action. There was one point which we were particularly glad to hear, and that was the clear statement that both Governments are determined fully to honour their obligations to Poland. I should like to put to the Lord Privy Seal, who is to reply, a point which occurred to me when I saw the communiqué making the announcement, and which I find has also occurred to a number of my friends, and that is, why the Polish Government were not represented on the Supreme War Council, and whether they will be so represented in future. At any rate, it was clear that the Supreme War Council determined to honour the obligations of the two countries towards Poland, and that they fully realised the relentless pressure on the Polish armies which those armies are so gallantly withstanding. There. are many other issues raised in the statement of the Prime Minister on which it would be tempting to comment, but on which it is impossible to form a full judgment without being in possession of data which, of course, it is impossible for the Prime Minister to give to the House.
That reflection brings me to comment on what the right hon. Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood) said in his very interesting observations on the functions of Parliament. I agree with him that the main functions of Parliament must be to hear and debate statements of the Prime Minister and legislation which His Majesty's Government bring before the House, and also to raise discussions and to enlighten the Government upon the feelings of our constituents. At the same time, the minds of our constituents are very easily stirred by considerations which are not easily made the subject of public debate, by those wider questions of policy which it is very difficult, if not


impossible, for us to discuss in public. I think we shall have to consider whether there may not have to be a repetitionéalthough I know full well what were the disadvantages of that system in the last Waréof those secret sessions which thén took place and at which these wider questions could be discussed.
The first point with which I wish to deal, arises not out of the statement which the Prime Minister made to-day, but out of that which he made a week ago. I then raised this point in a question to the Prime Minister. I felt that it was of importance, and many correspondents who have communicated with me since have emphasised its importance, from the wealth of experience which a number of them possess. That is the question of the free enlistment of ex-service men, so as to relieve Territorials and young soldiers who are now doing guard duty on railways and canals and work of that kind, and even garrison duty abroad. It is a question of relieving them and their staff officers and commanders for training in the field. A number of young officers are acting as assistant provost marshals and in positions of that kind, and I cannot help thinking that they would be better employed in learning their jobs.
The importance of this matter will arise, I think, in this way. As the war goes on there is bound to be pressure from our Allies as there was in the last Waréthis is history which is bound to repeat itselféfor reinforcements, before our men and officers are fully trained. We must not resent that pressure. It will be very natural, but we must resist it if it goes to the point of asking for untrained troops. But we shall only be able to resist it without damage to the fabric of the Alliance, if we can convince our Allies that everything is being done which a vigorous administration can do, to release fit men for training and to expedite that training as much as possible.
I wish to refer now to one or two points in the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, particularly those affecting life on the home front, as it might be called, during the war. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the lighting restrictions. I think it vital that they should be preserved intact. In that matter military considerations must prevail over considerations of the con-

venience of the public, though I was grateful to hear that the military authorities had come to the conclusion that we might be allowed to carry torches, which is a very agreeable concession. There is one point to which the Prime Minister did not refer. I do not wish to stress it, but I would like to refer to the inconvenience felt by the public as a result of the heavily restricted train services. It is natural that those restrictions should take place this week. We all know that great movements are taking place this week and I do not think we ought to grumble. I do not want to criticise His Majesty's Government, or the railway companies on that score. But people are feeling the inconvenience and I would like the Government to consider whether they could not discuss with the railway companies an improvement in the services in the near future, even if a certain number of men have to be released from other employments in order to return to employment on the railways.
Next I would like to say something about entertainments, first of all, in the evacuated areas. Surely we could have a little more entertainment, at any rate in the mornings and even in the evening though not perhaps to the full limit of capacity of cinemas and theatres at night. For example, I see that in Paris cinemas and theatres are allowed to open until half-past ten o'clock but are not allowed to be filled. They are allowed to fill only a certain proportion of their seating capacity. Might not that be considered as a temporary solution here, or at any rate as an experiment which might be tried in order to increase entertainment facilities for the masses of the people? Then, there is the entertainment of the troops. I wish to congratulate the Government on the excellent appointment of Sir Seymour Hicks to take charge of this important activity. The camps with which I am most in touch are those in the far North of Scotland, where there are important naval bases, with large numbers of sailors and large numbers of workmen employed on public works of various kinds. At the moment there are no entertainment facilities for those men. I am sure the Lord Privy Seal realises that if that state of things goes on, from week to week and from month to month, the moral of the men must suffer and the lower and coarser kinds of entertainment will be resorted to. I, therefore, press that urgent consideration should be given


to the entertainment of the troops, especially in those parts of the country where the problem is really pressing. I hope it may be possible to authorise Sir Seymour Hicks to arrange for a special train or two conveying concert parties and entertainment parties to go up to the North of Scotland to entertain those troops and workmen.
The Prime Minister referred to the organisation of the Civil Defence services as being now practically complete. He mentioned that he had heard the criticism that a mass of man-power was being unnecessarily mobilised. I am glad to hear that that aspect of the problem is receiving the attention of the Government. I would make one special point in connection with it. A number of A.R.P. workers at present have little to do. They are not even receiving training. Some of those who are not fully trained for the work which they have undertaken are sitting at casualty clearing stations and places like that with nothing to do. They have not even facilities for completing the training which they ought to have, and I hope that this matter will be considered.
One final point in relation to the home front. That is the question of the evacuated children. I join with the Prime Minister in paying a tribute to the energy of the local authorities and the good will of householders in the areas to which children have been evacuated. Rut local authorities are faced with a very heavy task. It is not only the education of the children, important though it is, which has to be provided for, but also their recreation—for which inadequate facilities exist—and their health, the maintenance of which is a tremendous task to throw upon these local authorities at the present time. I hope that aspect of the problem will receive the urgent attention of the Government.
I was glad to hear what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on the importance of the thorough organisation of supply and the avoidance of profiteering. He said that the Minister of Supply ought to have had a census a year ago of industrial establishments, but unfortunately the Minister did not exist a year ago. That, may I say in passing, was not the fault of my hon. Friends and myself who, three years ago, moved an Amendment to the Address which would have

had the effect, then, of calling the Ministry of Supply into existence. We agree most strongly with the right hon. Gentleman that there must be complete control of the armament industry in time of war and that vigorous measures must be taken to stop profiteering.
Now I come to the question of the Ministry of Information. Like the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, I want to make no personal criticism of the Minister, who has been indeed appointed only a very few days ago, and criticism of him would be, on the face of it, ridiculous, although it is a good constitutional principle to hold Ministers on that bench responsible for everything that their Departments do, and in time, of course, we shall not exempt the Minister of Information from that criticism. Meanwhile, we wish him well, but there has been, during the week or two that this Ministry has been operating, a shocking muddle, which came to a head the night before last in circumstances which the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition has already described.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: If the right hon. Gentleman will excuse my interrupting, I am not clear in my mind as to which Minister he is referring to. Is he actually referring to the Minister of Information, who is a Noble Lord in another House, or to the Lord Privy Seal, who is responsible?

Sir A. Sinclair: I have just said that I was referring to the Minister of Information, who was appointed two or three days ago, who is a Noble Lord in another House, and who is the Minister responsible for this Department. The Lord Privy Seal is not, as I understand it, responsible for the Department —

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Samuel Hoare): indicated assent.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am glad that the Lord Privy Seal agrees with me—but merely represents it in this House. I do not know what was the hon. Member's object in interrupting me, but I was not criticising the Noble Lord, and I want to deal with the actions of the Ministry. I part company a little with the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition, however, at the point at which he said that the final responsibility for what had occurred did not rest on the Minister of Information. I must


say that I think it does, though I am not going to press the point at this moment, because he is so recently in the saddle, but I think it does rest on the Minister of Information, and, from such information as I have been able to obtain, I do not think we can acquit the Ministry of Information of responsibility for the muddles that have taken place.
I go further, and I say that I do not think that its organisation—and on this point I am going to offer some reflections to the House—is well adapted for the successful performance of its functions. At the top of the Ministry is the Minister, with a director-general under him, and then under them are 13 sub-directors of various departments, all of whom form an executive committee, all of them reporting to the Minister through what is called a co-ordinating director, who appears to be a bottle-neck through which the whole business of the Ministry must pass. He is assisted by, a policy director, who is a Treasury official, not a journalist or a man with experience of this kind of work, let us say, on the British Council or the Foreign Office publicity department. These two gentlemen, the coordinating director and the policy director, under the director-general of the Ministry, supervise the work of these 13 sub-directors, all apparently with equal status, whether their departments are policy or purely functional departments. So far as I can ascertain—and I speak subject to the correction of the Lord Privy Seal—there seems to be no distinction between those departments which are policy departments, which deal with policy in the different areas of the world—in the Dominions, the United States of America, in other foreign countries, and so forth—and those which deal with purely functional matters, like films and broadcasting, which have been at the start coequal with, instead of being at the service of, the policy committees of the Ministry.
Moreover, there is this extraordinary feature of this organisation, that it has been built up without, as far as I can ascertain—though here again I speak subject to correction by the Lord Privy Seal—the active co-operation of those two organisations in this country which alone have had some experience of at least large parts of the field over which this Ministry has to operate. I refer, of

course, to the British Council and to the Foreign Office publicity department. I should have thought that those two bodies would have been the foundation stones of the new organisation, but they are hardly represented, and the Foreign Office seems to be almost entirely elbowed out.
Let us consider the Ministry's functions. The Prime Minister described its functions as being to steer between giving and withholding news, but that does not seem to be an adequate statement of the functions of the Ministry at all. It seems to me that it has two important functions. One is negative, and that is the suppression of news which is of importance to the enemy; but the other function is a positive function. It should be a Ministry of Enlightenment, both for the public at home and for the world at large. That is its most important function, and that is the function which it has so far most conspicuously failed to perform. Two aspects of this failure are important to notice. In the first place, foreign countries are getting inadequate and belated news and comment from this country. The Germans are outstripping us in neutral countries with news, and we are limping after them. I forget if it was in a Debate or at Question Time, but I think it was the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) who said that one of the important jobs of this Ministry was to win the battle for the headlines in the neutral Press.

Colonel Arthur Evans: That was said by one of the right hon. Gentleman's own party.

Sir A. Sinclair: Oh yes, of course; it was my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland). Far from winning the battle for the headlines, we are not even in that fight, and we are rapidly being ousted from the front pages of the newspapers in neutral countries. Surely we must not only be quick with the news, but we must be scrupulous to show every possible courtesy and to give every possible help to the foreign journalists in this country. The Deputy-Leader of the Opposition referred to some of the many petty restrictions to which they are now subject. As a matter of fact, he said they could only send their messages in English or French, but, unless I am mis-


taken, my information is that that restriction has now been loosened and that other languages are allowed.

Mr. Macquisten: You cannot even send a Latin quotation.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am not sure whether Latin is included in the new list of languages, but I understand that the list of permitted languages has now been widened, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal will confirm that.

Sir S. Hoare: indicated assent.

Sir A. Sinclair: There is a number of other petty restrictions, and I know that some of these foreign journalists feel that it is not fully realised that not only are they anxious to get the help of His Majesty's Government in sending news to their countries, but that they themselves are anxious to help His Majesty's Government by getting interesting news to their countries and by getting the British point of view put before their countries. The successful performance of their responsible duties is no more in their interest and in the interests of their countries than it is in the interests of our own.
In the second place, the people of our own country are getting inadequate and belated news. A public accustomed to the skilled work of highly trained journalists is quickly becoming disgusted with the drabness and dreariness of the Ministry's bulletins. From the very outset of this struggle the whole of our people have been in this war as never before, and they will not be content to be fobbed off with the stale crumbs of out of date news. Give them the truth, good or bad, and suppress it for one reason and one reason only, that the news would if printed be of value to the enemy. That principle cannot possibly justify the suppression of news that has already been broadcast from other countries all over the world and which has appeared in newspapers in other countries. To attempt to stop the publication of news like that in our newspapers is quite useless from the military point of view and makes our newspapers unnecessarily dreary and drab and puts suspicions into people's minds. They begin to feel, if they hear news on the broadcasts from foreign countries and see it perhaps in foreign newspapers sent to them, that

things are being kept from them and that they cannot rely on the newspapers of this country. That is very dangerous to our people in time of war.
Why, for example, cannot they be told more about the work of our Air Force? Following the suggestion of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition that we should tell the Government what our people are talking about, I should say that the people are getting very perturbed about our apparent inability to do more to help our Polish Allies in their hour of trial. We hear in bulletins and in reports from journalists on the frontiers of Poland about the tremendous concentration of air power against the Polish army. In his moving broadcast the other evening the Polish Ambassador spoke about the Polish Army meeting the onslaught of the entire German Air Force. On the other hand, we read General Goering's speech the other day when he said, "Let the British go on dropping their leaflets as long as they like, but if they dare to drop one bomb on German soil we will make them suffer for it." It looks to the people in the absence of news as though our great Air Force, of which we have for so long been rightly proud, of which we have been boasting, is doing practically nothing at the present time. The Lord Privy Seal shakes his head, but I am not saying that this is true; I am saying what is the impression which is being made on the people's minds.
It is true that there was yesterday the bare statement that the Royal Air Force was co-operating with the French Air Force. Why cannot that statement be elaborated? Why cannot we know exactly what they are doing? Why cannot some public relations officer at the Air Ministry tell the Ministry of Information what they are doing and give journalists the opportunity of writing it up in good plain English and of telling the story of it to-the British people? Let me refer to one example, the spendid exploit of the Royal Air Force the other day in the attack on-ships in the Keil Canal. I have had an opportunity of hearing something about it. It was a stirring story. It was not only the weather, about which we read in the bulletins, against which they had to contend, but they had to contend against a tremendous concentration of defensive equipment of every sort. It was a story of magnificent courage and suc-


cessful achievement. A skilled journalist should have been given the opportunity of meeting a public relations officer at the Air Ministry, or of meeting, perhaps, one of the officers who had taken part in the exploit and who could have told the story in his words. Then the journalist could have told it in plain, vibrant English prose which would have been a tonic to our own people and to our allies and the neutrals. The story would have had to be submitted to the censorship, but it could have been told in plain strong phrases of ringing encouragement to the public. I would suggest to the Lord Privy Seal that some of these skilled journalists should be sent to France to tell us what our airmen are doing there.
I believe that the British people are solidly behind us in Parliament in our determination to smash Hitlerism, but we must not take them for granted. They will not be satisfied with official assurances and uninformative bulletins. They know that we can only win this war if our methods are vigorous, unconventional, and even robustly vulgar, for war is a vulgar occupation and it cannot be won in kid gloves. I beg the Government to give us the assurance that they will give the Press every possible opportunity of filling up the gap of ignorance which is growing between the public and the Government, and will insist that the Ministry of Information is not only a Ministry of suppression, but primarily a Ministry of national and world enlightenment.

5.33 p.m.

Sir S. Hoare: More than once in the course of our Debates I have wondered whether it would have been possible in any other capital of the world to have had the kind of discussion we have had to-day. We have freely discussed together mistakes, inadequacies, and, it may be, inefficiencies. I am the last man in the House to resent any such discussion, but I say this, lest anyone outside the House in foreign countries should misunderstand this country, that it is evidence of the strength of our great machine that we are prepared to run any risk there might be in freely discussing any deficiencies that may show themselves; and the fact that this afternoon, at an early stage of the war, we have freely

pointed to this or that deficiency, is a sign not of weakness but of strength.
I am glad in these early days of the war to have a discussion about the Ministry of Information. The change over from peace to war is a very difficult moment. Particularly is it a difficult moment in a democratic country. We pass straightway from freedom of discussion and liberty of the Press into a chapter in which restrictions are obviously necessary. In the course of three or four days we have made this abrupt transition. We might have set up the Ministry of Information before the war. Very definitely I told the House of Commons why, for reasons which we thought were unanswerable, we had no such intention. We thought its activities would be misunderstood and misrepresented in peacetime. Accordingly, it is only in the last seven or eight days that this great organisation has come into being. I am here to say that there must inevitably be a period of difficulty before we get the machine running smoothly on the new road. I am here not to say that there has not been friction, that mistakes have not been made, or that we are yet on a well-metalled road, but, rather, to assure the House that those in charge of this machine are working night and day at removing obstacles and are making—as I believe I shall show in the course of my speech—real progress in the direction we are all determined to take.
Let me say at this point that I accept without reservation the description that both right hon. Gentlemen have just given of what they conceive to be the duties of the Ministry of Information, duties not only for the suppression of dangerous news but duties, equally important, for the enlightenment of the public here and the enlightenment of other countries beyond the seas. Let the House remember this fact during this discussion, that in the war of 1914–18 it took years of trial, error and experiment before we set up a Ministry of Information at all. In this war we have jumped the intermediate stages, and inevitably this sudden acceleration makes that change from peace to war conditions more conspicuous and more disturbing. Ten days ago we had a skeleton with little or no body. Apart from a few civil servants and professional advisers, we had made no definite apppointments to the Ministry.


The body has had to be put on to the skeleton in the course of comparatively few days.
The right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) made various criticisms of the organisation of the Department. I say at once that we do not regard ourselves as infallible in the matter of this new organisation. I think, however, he was under some misunderstanding as to the scope of it. For instance, policy will be the concern of the Minister and the Director-General, and not of subordinate people. So far as professional advisers are concerned, I take, as an instance, the relations between the Department and the Press. There are already in the Ministry a very large number of men whose profession is the profession of the Press, and I can tell the House that the Minister is in the act of increasing the number. But at this point I do not go further into detail, except to say that we will take into account the right hon. Gentleman's criticism. The position must, in the nature of things in these early days, be somewhat fluid, but I believe myself, having taken some interest in the initial work of creating the skeleton of the Department, that we have held the right kind of balance between policy on the one hand and the functional work of the Department on the other, that is to say, the Department's dealings with the principal mediums of publicity, the Press, the films and the wireless. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, even though he may still think, and think with reason, that there are many improvements that might be made, will give this new and untried Department credit for having started its operations at once, credit perhaps for having been ready—I give the House a single instance—with the organisation of the dropping of leaflets upon enemy countries. I give that as one of many instances which I think show that, apart from deficiencies that may still exist, the Department has come into being and in the course of a very few days has shown its activities usefully in more directions than one.
The Department was faced with what, after all, is one of the most difficult problems of war, on the one hand the need of secrecy, that is to say, the withholding from the enemy of any information that might be of use to him, and on the other hand the need of publicity, that is to say, the need for invigorating the

moral of the nation and giving our people as much information as it is possible to give them. The Service Departments—I do not blame them for their attitude— must inevitably insist upon the first of these two duties, the need for secrecy. The Ministry of Information, on the other hand, has to insist upon the second of these two duties, the need for publicity, and one of the immediate problems of the new Department is to make a reconciliation between those two points of view.

Miss Wilkinson: It is a pity they cannot make up their mind.

Sir S. Hoare: If the hon. Lady will allow me to make my explanation she will see whether or not her criticisms are justified. It may be they are, and if they are we must take them to heart; but I prefer to give the House a statement, with as few reservations as possible, of the position as I see it to-day, and I say to hon. Members that this is the immediate duty of the Department: To reconcile these two needs, the need for secrecy on the one hand and publicity on the other. In the last week this liaison has been tested, and I admit to the House it has on more than one occasion felt a heavy strain. This, I think, was inevitable. There was a heavy strain on Monday night. There was a misunderstanding—I do not disguise these facts from the House—that led to a great deal of regrettable confusion which I hope will never recur. I do not wish to be drawn into details of these events. I am inclined to think the House is more interested to see that they do not happen again rather than know what actually happened at this or that hour upon one evening. Let me in a sentence or two—and it will not be more—give the House a short description of the kind of difficulty with which we were then faced.
As a result of the publication in France the War Office authorised at 9 p.m. on Monday the general release of messages emanating from France relating to the presence of British troops in France. Later in the evening the Ministry of Information felt it their duty to draw the attention of the War Office to the danger lest, under the voluntary censorship which still exists, details might be published over and above this general information which might be of value to the enemy. The General Staff took the view that the risk was a great one and


that there should be no publication at all. I am not now criticising anyone. It is the duty of the General Staff to see that nothing is published that can be of value to the enemy. The General Staff took a very strong view upon this question. The result was that steps were immediately taken by the Ministry to withdraw the permission in the middle of the night, but by that time certain editions of the papers had already been published. Confusion inevitably resulted. It was quite obvious as the night wore on that when certain editions of those papers had already been published it was impossible to withdraw the release of the news which had been given earlier in the day. Accordingly the prohibition was cancelled and the news did eventually appear.
I admit and apologise for the confusion, and my Noble Friend the Minister of Information has made it his business since Monday to see how best the situation can be remedied so that nothing of that kind ever occurs again. I can tell the House that the Minister has now arranged with the heads of the Service Departments that a senior officer, not a junior, of each Service Department, should be whole-time in the Ministry of Information for the purpose of advising the Minister and keeping the closest possible contact between those Service Departments and the Ministry of Information. Hitherto contact has been on a lower scale upon the grade of junior officers. I am inclined to think that we must test the position by experience and that with these senior officers from each of the Service Departments, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, sitting in the Ministry of Information, and going backwards and forwards between their staffs and the Ministry of Information, I am not optimistic when I say that I do not believe that the events of Monday night are ever likely to recur.
Then there was another criticism made by both right hon. Gentlemen as to the delay in the issue of communiqués. I think both right hon. Gentlemen quoted cases that concerned the Air Ministry. There, again, I admit that there has been something wrong. Let the House remember that the position is very difficult. It is difficult for a Government Office, the Ministry of Information or any Service

Department, to allow intelligence about an operation or about the threat of an attack to be published until they have verified the accuracy of the information. I have been at some pains to look into one or two cases that happened last week. The origin of the trouble was that the Departments concerned were nervous lest information should get out that subsequently would prove to be inaccurate. How can we—this is the question which hon. Members will be asking themselves to-day—while maintaining the accuracy of the information expedite the communiqués? The Minister of Information has been in consultation with the Secretary of State for Air and they have come to the conclusion that it will be possible, at any rate in some cases, to issue quite quickly some general communiqué and not to hold up any communiqué until they have obtained all the details about a particular incident. There, again, I think the House will find a considerable improvement in the immediate future.
I pass from these specific criticisms to the more general criticisms about the censorship. Let me remind hon. Members of the present position with the censorship. If any hon. Members were present at the end of the summer when we had a Debate upon the Ministry of Information they will remember that I said that I was anxious to avoid what is generally known as a preventive censorship, that is to say, a compulsion upon the Press to have everything passed by the Department before it is actually published, but to work if it were possible upon a basis of co-operation under which the Press would be given general directions, and so long as they kept within those general directions that it would be unnecessary for them to have every bit of war information passed by the Department. That is the plan upon which we are working to-day, and that is the plan upon which, with the co-operation of the Press, we hope to go on working in the future. The general principle—I would ask the attention of hon. Members to this general principle—which lies at the root of our conception of censorship should be that the Government are not responsible for the accuracy of the facts published in the Press unless they explicitly say so. The Press censorship does not exist to relieve the Press of the necessity of checking the accuracy of their information. It exists for one purpose and one purpose


alone, to prevent information being published which would be useful and helpful to the enemy. That is the basic principle on which the Ministry of Information intend to work.
I do not disguise from the House that there have been difficulties in applying this principle. Let me take one or two of them. They have already been mentioned by both right hon. Gentlemen. I tell the House frankly what the difficulties have been. I begin with the difficulties of the Dominions, the neutral and the foreign correspondents. Let me say, we approached their difficulties as difficulties are approached between friends. Obviously, with the Dominions, we regard them as ourselves; but let me further say that, so far as the neutrals are concerned, I look around the world and I see scarcely any neutrals on the side of the enemy. Therefore, we have all the more to take into account the difficulties of the foreign correspondents, and to meet them as sympathetically and effectively as we can. There was, first of all, the difficulty of the telephone censorship. Hon. Members will see at once that a cable censorship is comparatively easy to apply, but when it comes to telephoning it is much more difficult to keep a check on the messages. To start with, in the early days of the war, there was the embargo upon foreign correspondents using the telephones for overseas messages at all. I think it was a necessary precaution in the circumstances, but I am glad to be able to tell the House that further consideration of the position has made it possible for the censorship to be relaxed in this respect, and for reputable foreign correspondents to use the telephones to many countries—radio-telephones, for instance, to America and so on—and I believe, from the discussions that 1 have had with the representatives of the Press of America and other foreign countries, that the fact that they will be able, under proper conditions, to use the telephones, will make a great difference to them in the transmission of news.
They were faced with another difficulty in the delay in the passing of cables through the censorship. Cables were delayed at first; but, there, again, I am inclined to think that the arrangement which has now been brought into force is going to meet their wishes. Henceforth, there will be censors in the cable offices. That, in itself, is going to obviate

a considerable amount of the delay. Furthermore, the censorship in the last day or two has been greatly strengthened by the inclusion of censors who can deal with cables in various foreign languages. In the early days of the war there was a deficiency of these linguists, and there was an embargo upon the sending of messages abroad except in French and English. I think I can assure the House that that gap has now been closed. I have here a list of linguists in almost every language, who will be available, without delay, to deal with cables in the offices. Messages now will be passed, I think I am right in saying, in all the languages that are likely to be used for messages of this kind. From what I can hear, the foreign correspondents will be very well satisfied with this change in the arrangements. The House will forgive me for going into these details, but it is well that hon. Members should see the kind of problems with which we have been faced.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are the Balkan languages to be included?

Sir S. Hoare: I think I can give the hon. Member that assurance. At any rate, I will see that attention is at once paid to the matter. There was another difficulty. I think hon. Members will see that, in the circumstances, it was inevitable. There was the difficulty of priority telegrams. Hon. Members will see that in war-time there is a great mass of Government priority telegrams and that this is, in the nature of things, inevitable. The result was that the machinery was almost entirely monopolised by these priority telegrams. The newspaper correspondents had to suffer very long delays in the transmission of their messages. I will tell the House what we are doing to try to meet that grievance. We have analysed the Government telegrams and graded them, and we are examining the possibility of altering the system so that correspondents will not have to wait until every Government telegram has gone. There will be certain occasions when Government telegrams which are obviously really important will have to go first, but after that, somewhere down in the gradation, we hope to arrange that correspondents will have their place, instead of having to wait until the end of all the Government telegrams.
I will pass to a further point which has loomed very large in the minds of some of the American correspondents. That is the difficulty of synchronising wireless communication with cable communication. It has happened in the last week, more than once, that the wireless has got ahead of the Press, and the Press correspondents have very much resented the fact that they have seemed to be placed under a disadvantage. The Ministry has now made arrangements under which both will start equally at scratch. The messages will be synchronised, so that neither gets an advantage in the matter of time. I hope that, with these changes, which I assure the House are very substantial, we shall see a very great improvement in the immediate future. The Minister of Information is keeping in very close touch with the foreign Press correspondents. He will watch to see how the position develops, and will be ready and anxious to remove any grievances that can be removed without danger to the conduct of the war.
Lastly, I come to the grievances of the British Press. I have already dealt with the unfortunate events of last Monday. I will only say that, as far as the British Press are concerned, the Ministry is most anxious to have the closest and quickest and most friendly contact with them. There are already, as I have said, a number of Pressmen in the Department. I believe the relations between the Press and the Department have improved. I will not say that they are yet by any means perfect—they could not be perfect in so short a time—but the arrangements seem to be working more smoothly. For instance, the Minister of Information met a number of representatives of the British Press yesterday, and I have an unsolicited testimonial from a number of representatives of the Press who were present at that meeting. They say that they were thoroughly satisfied with their reception, with what was being done, and with the changes that were being made in the Department by the Ministry.
I have gone through a long list of specific points, and I hope that every hon. Member will see that some of these problems have not been as simple as they may seem at first sight, but I hope that they also see that the Ministry has been attempting to deal with them in a practi-

cal, common-sense way. The Ministry fully accepts the conception of the Department as described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness, that it should, in spirit and in letter, be a Department of information rather than merely a form of censorship. The Department is determined greatly to develop that side of its work. We wish to tell our story—and it is a very good one—fully and freely in this country. We wish to tell it fully and freely in the countries abroad. The greater publicity we can have of many of the aspects of our national life, the better it will be for the world and the better it will be for the national effort in this country. I hope that I have said enough not in any way to suggest that we are unconscious of the gaps, mistakes and inadequacies which still exist, but to convince hon. Members on all sides of the spirit with which the Department approaches the problem, and the determination we have to surmount these difficulties.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that if any future incident such as that of Monday night occurs—and it may happen in spite of the best arrangements— it will not be felt necessary to send the police to the newspaper offices? I do not know of anything which newspapers may or may not have done in the last few years to justify what smacked far too much of the Gestapo.

Sir S. Hoare: I can tell my hon. Friend that I hope it will never happen again.

6.3 p.m.

Captain Cazalet: I want to ask the Lord Privy Seal a question, and I will confine my remarks to two or three minutes. Can he, by administrative action, do anything to secure the opening of cinemas on Sundays in country districts? Everyone is aware that some millions of people are now added to the population in country districts. In many of them cinemas are not open on Sundays, and I believe that there is a general demand that these people, who are used to cinemas being opened in London on Sundays, should have the same facilities in the countryside. There are also a large number of people whose only day of recreation is Sunday, and in these times certain local prejudices, which may have prevented the opening of cinemas in the


past, should be overruled, if possible, by administrative action by the Government.
I had certain observations which I had intended to try and make with regard to the subjects which have been raised today, but it is quite clear from what the Lord Privy Seal has said, that he is aware of the many criticisms that have been made in regard to the Ministry of information and the whole policy of the Government towards news given to the people of this country. One often asks whether Ministers are really aware of the extent of the feeling in the country. I have been with Ministers in various humble capacities, and I know full well that, even in peace time, they are nearly always confronted by yes-men, but in peace time, at any rate, they have the dual criticism of the Press and of Parliament. To-day neither of these is functioning in the usual way, and it may well be that the War Cabinet and other Ministers, because of the pressure of work and of the problems and difficulties they have to face, are not aware of the mystification, and, I do not think it is too much to say, the irritation among large sections of the community in regard to what has happened in the past few days. We have had on the B.B.C. snippets of unimaginative and uninteresting information five times a day, and the next morning the papers are merely a rehash of this news. It has had this curious effect. It has created a uniformity among the papers, which makes one hardly know when one is reading the "Times" or the "Daily Express" or the "Daily Herald." If the Government are going to continue this policy, it is better to abolish the newspapers and publish a British Gazette, which was done in the General Strike. The Lord Privy Seal himself said just now that we want to tell the story fully, fairly and freely. That is just what we are asking him to do—to tell the story.
Take the case of the Keil Canal, which has been raised before in this Debate. Why do not we tell the story now? Is there any secret as to who these people were? Cannot we get the name of one or two of them? Do tell the people something of these romantic sides of war. If they are Canadians or Australians so much the better. Even now I want to know, and I believe we all want to know, something more about this epic. We do not want to have to wait six months or

two, three or four years before we know the names that ought to be in everybody's mouth to-day. Cannot we ever hear what is going on in Italy or China? Are despatches from these countries in existence? Has correspondence ceased to exist? I do not want to detail the many instances of which I could give particulars here, in regard to what has happened in the past few days. It is no good going over old ground, but I would like to give this incident, because it shows that something is radically wrong with the whole machinery. A well-known American journalist asked for a copy of the leaflet which we dropped in Germany and was told that it was a secret and he would have to wait two days.
What is happening to-day? The United States of America are getting more war news from Berlin than they are from London. The speakers who have been deputed to broadcast to America the news of the war from this country have had their time cut down because the American public or their responsible controllers believe that the news coming from this country is so limited and so dull that it is not worth putting over. There are other instances of that kind. They culminate in this incredible fiasco of last Monday night. The news of British troops being in France was published in the American papers five or six days ago. It was given out in France. Why has the whole world to know what is happening but not the English people? I know the arguments about secrecy. I was in the Supreme War Council in Versailles in the critical days of 1918, and I am fully aware how necessary it is to guard these secrets. You might be telling what would appear to most people a perfectly innocent fact but to those who know more you might be giving away something vital. But I cannot believe that news published all over the world, and which everybody in this country knows, should be withheld from the newspapers. I met an American correspondent the other day and in 10 minutes he gave me more information about what was happening in the war and in the world than I had secured in 10 days from reading the papers of this country.
Why do they treat us like a mass of unpractical creatures who merely have to obey. I will tell you why? It is exactly the same as in the last War; the Brass


Hats are beginning to get control. They always do. It is perfectly natural, and up to a certain degree right, that they should, but do let us see that at this early stage of the war the functions of the Brass Hat cease where they should cease. After all, this is not a war of Brass Hats on either side. It is a people's war. It is a kind of crusade, and, if it were not, you would never get the great mass of the people to support it as they are doing to-day. I hope the Government will trust the people, tell them all the facts, and kill rumours. As the war goes on, if they give them no news, then it will be interpreted as bad news. Our people will accept news, good or bad, but one thing they will not tolerate, and rightly so, is not being told anything at all.
I hope that Ministers realise the extent of public feeling in regard to this matter. If for that reason alone, I hope Parliament will continue to sit and that these Debates will continue to go on, because there is always a danger in war time of the Executive being so occupied with the gigantic task which they have to fulfil that they are not aware of what the mass of the people are feeling. What the Lord Privy Seal has said is, I think, sufficient to show that he really understands what people are thinking and saying, and that he will take the necessary steps to correct it. The present policy in regard to news is a foolish policy to-day, and to-morrow it may be a dangerous one. It does nothing to defeat the enemy abroad, and it does still less to reassure the people at home.

6.13 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: After listening to the speeches, I feel impelled to take up cudgels for the Ministry of Information. Monday's muddle was not the fault of the Ministry of Information. It was the fault of the Brass Hats. All that we are complaining of this afternoon is not the fault of the Ministry of Information but the fault of the material with which they are supplied and allowed to publish. I want to put in a word in favour of what they have published. It has been a great deal more than we got in August, 1914. We have had much more information and much truer information. The demand made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) and the hon. and gallant Mem-

ber for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) is for bright, breezy accounts of what took place at Kiel or elsewhere. The Ministry of Information are perfectly right in refusing to supply false, coloured accounts of what takes place. The Ministry must supply exactly what is supplied to them by the fighting departments. If they embroider they may supply something which may be cheering to the people of this country but in the long run it will be bad for public confidence.
We remember perfectly well the battle of Jutland. The official telegram came out when I was in East Africa. It was discouraging. It had such a bad effect upon public opinion in this country that the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), although he was not at that time First Lord of the Admiralty, produced an entirely different account, which cheered us greatly. We liked it. Thank God he did it. It was a most depressing moment for us. It may be the business of isolated people to do that sort of thing, but I cannot believe that it is the business of the Ministry of Information to colour the information they get, in order to appeal to the jaded and anxious palates of people in this country, or even of neutrals, or the people in America. That is the duty of journalists and people who do not rely upon the Minister of Information for all their news. I do not see why we should censor what any journalist chooses to write about say Jutland or Zeebrugge, or Kiel. A magnificent story might be made out in that way, but once it comes from an official source, the Ministry of Information, it might damp our courage when we saw what the losses were, or it might give information to the Germans as to the number of aeroplanes they had shot down, or the number of aeroplanes that took part in the expedition. That is why I do not want official information, but I do want to have articles saying what Mr. X. Y. Z. thinks about it, or what he gets from secret sources, or straight from the horse's mouth. His account may be as cheery as you like, and it may go to America or to other neutral countries, but let the Ministry of Information stick to the truth. Then they will be in a much stronger position and much more useful to the country.
I think the appointment of Lord Macmillan to the Ministry of Information


was the best appointment this Government has yet made, except that of the right ton. Member for Epping to the Admiralty. Lord Macmillan was once in the Labour Government, and he has the complete confidence of everybody who knew him in those days and have known him ever since. I do not think that anyone who has not started a new Department has any conception of the enormous difficulties. I went over the Ministry of Information yesterday. [Laughter.] Why not? It is always better to go over a place before you start talking. I found a lot of extremely smart young men, but I did not find, as I should have liked to have found, the chart that one usually finds in a new business, showing the devolution of authority, the channels through which every executive action and all information proceeds. I should have expected to see in every office one of these framed charts so that the people there would begin to know the people in other departments in conjunction with whom they are working. No doubt that will come about later. Let us, however, give the Department a little more than four days before we start to criticise.
The message of the Government which it distributed in 6,000,000 leaflets over Germany was a bad one. It appeared to me to be an apologia for the British Government. There is no possible apologia for the British Government, in my opinion. In a message to the German people we do not want to explain that the British Government was always a perfect Government. What we wanted to explain to them was (a) that the Hitler Government was not a perfect Government and (b) if they would get rid of Hitler, what they would get from us. You cannot carry on propaganda in any country unless you study what you are after. I believe that the Government of this country has one thing only in view, and that is to, get rid of Hitlerism for all time from Europe, and we want to get the Germans to lend a hand in doing that. We ought to state our case quite clearly to Germany, to let them know that we have no quarrel with the German people, that the result of this war shall not alter the boundaries of Germany in any respect, that there shall not be another Versailles, but that there shall be in the future a federation of all the Powers pooling their defensive forces and combining together, not in a League of

Nations but in a federation. That is the aim and object of every thinking man. Whether we think it practicable or not I do not know, but I am quite certain that you must state what you are after if you are to persuade the German working men that the best thing they can do is to put a bullet through Hitler.
I do not like in the leaflet which was distributed over Germany a very obvious omission. Nothing was said about the persecution which Hitler has carried out against the Jews. Either we dislike it or we are proposing to condone it, and the omission to mention it was, to my mind, a sort of silly concession to Hitlerism. It seemed that we must not say that the persecution of the Jews is abominable because the German people may like it, or that possibly some of our own people may like it. It is no good trying to ride two horses. That government is an abomination, and if you leave out what has united and brought together the British people against the Hitler Government in your propaganda you will never have very much effect, for Ribben-trop, after he has dined and wined over here with English people, will still continue to think that we are in sympathy with what has been done in Germany. We are not in sympathy with it. We want to get rid of Hitlerism; and your propaganda must be directed towards that and must not be hedging towards dictatorships. Let us remember that the Ministry of Information should be a Ministry of true information; it is the best form of propaganda.
Let me come to another aspect of the question. If you are to give your Ministry of Information its full value you must have closer contact between this House and the Ministry. In all the new Ministries started during the last War Members of this House had a place in the office of the chief of the Department, acting, in fact, as a parliamentary private secretary, keeping constant contact between the Ministry, the Press, the public and this House. If that had been followed on this occasion the difficulties on Monday night would not have arisen. We must have closer liaison; and there are quite enough people in this House to volunteer for that sort of work. Ministers in the House of Commons have parliamentary private secretaries. Why should not a Minister in the House of Lords have a parliamentary private secretary; and why should not


some of the heads of the departments in the Ministry of Information, which is new and depends entirely on contact with the House of Commons? Why should they not have Members of Parliament with them? It is not a full-time job, but it is a most useful job. The main advantage we have over dictatorship countries is that we have a channel between the public and the Executive always open, and every time you close that channel you increase the advantages of the dictators and the disadvantages to the public; you obstruct the only means whereby explanations and information can come from one to the other.
Indeed, the question of the use of Members of Parliament in war-time goes a little further than the Ministry of Information. I was sorry to hear the Prime Minister say that no Members of Parliament would be allowed to take on work at the Foreign Office, because I think it showed exactly the wrong spirit. Surely there is no trade unionism in the Foreign Office which will not take Members of Parliament because they are unpaid? In the last War quite a number of hon. Members did work for the Foreign Office as despatch riders and King's Messengers. There was Harold Smith and Stanley Wilson and Park Goff, and they did useful work. Not only did they carry out their duties without any charge, but they brought back to this House and to the Government a new point of view, not a strictly official point of view. In the last War, also, a number of Members of Parliament took Commissions in the Army and acted as liaison officers between the Cabinet and the Army in the field. Every one wrote continually to his own chief. Some wrote to the Admiralty and others, like Godfrey Collins, communicated with the Secretary of State for India and was responsible for getting the Mesopotamian Mission appointed by giving information to the Secretary of State. All over the world we were the eyes of the Government, reporting to the Government. We had our commissions in the Army, and the generals were very glad to talk things over with us in order to get their views sent to the Government through us, quite illegally and quite secretly, but very usefully. I think that Members of Parliament who are now going to their different regiments and garrisons

will be doing equally useful work if they communicate privately with their own chiefs and with the Prime Minister, sending them precis and minutes which they can communicate to the Cabinet. That is what we did in the last War, and I think the Cabinet would be well advised to have similar sources of information now.
Let us remember that no Member of Parliament was ever put into the Army at the starting grade. We were all given decent, respectable rank so that old people over 40 were not in the ridiculous position of being ordered about and dictated to by a young subaltern of 25. I do not think any Member of Parliament should take a commission less than captain, and I do not think any Member of Parliament ought to be asked to take a commission now less than a major if he fought in the last War. That, at any rate, maintains the dignity of our position. I can assure hon. Members that they will find in the Army every desire to put a Member of Parliament in his proper place unless he has the rank to stand up for himself. For all these reasons I would ask that not only in the Ministry of Information, where liaison is so essentially necessary, but in all Departments there should be Members of Parliament able to give information to Ministers, able to act as a channel between the generals commanding and the Ministry, helping their country in a hundred and one different ways, remembering that they have one enormous advantage over all the other people in the fighting services or the Civil Service, that their promotion does not depend on their doing what they are told and never using their brains for unorthodox action, but that they are independent of career, and can without fear consider always first and only the interests of the country.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton Kern: The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) drew attention to the vital necessity of speed when news is sent out. Bismarck, who knew as much about propaganda as Goebbels, said that if it had to be sent out you should send it out not too long, otherwise no one would read it, but, above all, quickly. I think he was quite right when he said that the great value of propaganda is sending it out as quickly as possible. I was very relieved when the Lord Privy Seal said it was the


intention of the Ministry to take the public as much as possible into its confidence. I believe that this war, more than any other in our history, is a war of the ordinary men and women of the country, the ordinary men and women who have made up their minds that Hitlerism must be swept off the map of Europe, and they are therefore shareholders in our final victory. I believe the more we take them into our confidence the more confidence they will have in us.
I remember when I left the university going for a year to work on a great London newspaper. On my first day in the office one of the leading lights, a man trained under Lord Northcliffe, gave me a piece of advice. He said, "Remember that news is not merely statement or assertion. News is facts and, whenever you are reporting, ask yourself the question, ' Am I reporting facts? ' "I believe that, in propaganda, facts are not only important, but that they should be true facts. Although it may sometimes be necessary to suppress facts, it never pays to tell a lie. Sooner or later you will be found out, and confidence will be lost. The right hon. Gentleman opposite drew attention to our reports on the battle of Jutland. I believe that was a case in point. The morning after Jutland the headlines of the newspapers startled readers with our losses, and there was, no doubt, consternation. At the same time the Germans issued a bombastic account claiming a great victory, but our version was proved to be true and the German version untrue and ever afterwards, owing to our courage in telling the true facts to our people, people believed our statements and disbelieved the German statements.
It is essential, in giving news to our people, that it should be true. I believe likewise that it should be co-ordinated as much as possible. Everyone must say the same thing. There was a case a short time ago when it was reported that Polish bombers had raided Berlin. A few days later, when our aeroplanes passed over Cassel, it was stated that that was Berlin's first air-raid warning. Obviously, those two statements did not tally. They should have tallied. I believe that co-ordination is the second principle. I believe that these raids over Germany dropping leaflets have been one of the most daring and imaginative strokes that any nation has

ever used in war. I hope that in these brilliant beginnings the great principles which Lord Northcliffe laid down in the last war will not be forgotten. They were to try to find the weak link in the enemy's mind. Once he found it he played relentlessly and ceaselessly upon it. If he heard that there was a shortage of food in Berlin, he saw to it at once that the German housewife was told how many ounces of sugar, butter and meat were on the English housewife's table. If there was a movement for liberty in Czechoslovakia, he saw to it that a statement of our policy towards Czecho-Slovakia was enunciated. The secret of his success was that his propaganda made a personal appeal to each individual. It was individual appeal, and therefore the most successful propaganda in the whole War. I believe that the people of this country are sufficiently stout-hearted always to bear the truth. I believe they want the truth brought to them in the most interesting and attractive way and I hope that, as time passes, we shall see journalists of established reputation working more and more with the Ministry of Information. I believe that the principles which Lord Northcliffe enunciated in the last War will not only prove right but will bring victory to us.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. McGovern: I intended originally to raise the question of the difficulties of evacuation, especially in Scotland, but as I understand there is to be a full Debate in connection with that subject we will postpone any observations that we intend to make till that occasion, if we can catch the Speaker's eye. There are one or two points that I want to raise which I consider fairly important from the point of view of the general public. There are some points in the speech of the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition which, frankly, I cannot understand. To begin with, he condemns the Government as being feeble and fumbling and giving a white sheet with black spots on it and so forth, and he said they create the opinion throughout the world, by their propaganda, that they are not a Government which should be entrusted with the job of carrying on the war. The Opposition have endorsed the policy of the Government and they have agreed to the personnel of the Government, because of the fact that they have made no serious representations in the


House or in the country that the Government should be changed, and they have been asked, as I understand from the Press, to accept positions in it and have refused to accept them. If the Press is to be believed on this occasion, liaison officers have been established between the Departments to give the intelligentsia of the Labour party a knowledge of what is going on and to contribute to the general well-being and conduct of the Government.
If that is true, that they are prepared, and have declared that they are prepared, to back up the Government and to see the war through, if they are satisfied with the aims of the Government, if they back conscription and the declaration of war, if they have refused to accept positions in the Government and have established liaison officers, and members of the party are taking picked jobs, and complaint is being made that they are not getting enough of the jobs that are going, all I can say is that there is arrant hypocrisy in attempting to make us believe that they are attacking the Government, and sending out their attack over the wireless telling Hitler and company that they are a feeble and fumbling Government unable to direct their minds along the channels of the prosecution of the war. I say that because I am against the war and will take no part in support of the war; but I try to be as logical as the situation will permit, and while being against the war and against taking part in it in any shape or form, I cannot understand that type of propaganda. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) talked about not riding two horses at once. I see an attempt to ride two horses in this matter. There is an attempt by the Opposition to pander to the feeling there is in the country either against the war or in criticism of the Government, while at the same time nine-tenths of their bodies and minds are in the war and the Government, and taking part in the general struggle. To that extent I disagree with them.
I have heard to-day various suggestions as to how the Government should conduct the war. I heard the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme

say that no Member of Parliament should go into the Armed Forces, if he has served before, in a position less than that of major. I shudder to think of what would happen to the country if that were true, and I shudder to think of the glee there would be in Berlin if they heard that all Members of Parliament were admirals, majors and generals, for then Hitler's job would be a comparatively easy one. Do not let us be carried away with this nonsense that people who are ill-fitted for a task should be placed in positions of that kind. In the last War there were too many Members of Parliament going round as lieutenant-colonels. They became the laughingstock of every workshop in the country. There were jests and vulgar jokes about Labour leaders going about with swords when they hardly knew the right end of a sword. I hope none of those things will be taken seriously in this country, and much as I disagree with the war, I hope we shall not reduce the Armed Forces to a sort of Fred Karno's army, in an attempt to frighten Hitler or make people believe that we are determined to carry on the war to the last Member of Parliament.
I have heard some of the criticism and propaganda that have been made. I have heard of the raid that was made on the "Daily Express." It has been said that was like the Gestapo. Let me tell the House that the Independent Labour party are running a small paper called the "New Leader," and. as far as I understand it, it was not the Government of this country which suppressed that paper. It was Odhams Press, the "Daily Herald," who refused to publish it because they thought there were in it some things which did not conform with their ideas of criticism of the Government and the country. Therefore, their Gestapo, the "Daily Herald" and Odhams Board, refused to print our little paper because we were putting a different point of view from theirs. The Gestapo works in many ways, in many minds, and in many parties. But in relation to the "Daily Express," I think it is the duty of the Government, no matter whether or not I agree with them, to see that newspapers in this country do not run riot with imaginative stories. Last Tuesday, just after midnight, in the darkened streets of Glasgow, the "Daily Express" came out with a story in their first edition that


the German fortifications in the West had been broken at 12 places. That sort of thing creates a feeling on the part of everybody who buys the newspaper that the war is going with a swing and that we have almost as good as won it. But we hear nothing about it afterwards, and that causes a feeling of depression. It would have been better if the story had never been published, for it was a false story, and anybody who had any understanding at all, even if he was not a military man, knew that it was an outrageous thing, and could not be true. How any editor published it passes my comprehension. Then there was the story of the seizure of the "Bremen." The newspapers published that the "Bremen" had been captured and was being taken 1o a British port. Evidently, that was another fabrication because, after being in different editions, the story just passed out.
There have been any number of cases of that kind. I have heard people say that there are already hundreds of British wounded in this country. Some actually claim to have seen them. In connection with the leaflet distribution, a much better type of story has just been passing round some of the coffee rooms. Even in war, it is better to have a little humour. It is said that an airman after that raid did not return to his camp for two days. His commanding officer asked where he had been. He said he had misinterpreted his orders and thought that the leaflets had to be put under the doors of the houses in Germany. But stories of that kind are more desirable than stories of the kind which arouse false hopes.
I have seen in newspapers in this country certain messages — some of which, I suppose, come through this party, and I mention this to show that my criticism is not confined to any one source of information. These messages state that German workers are sending letters and communications which show that they are ready to revolt, so great is their disagreement with the German Government. I do not believe those stories. I believe them to be written by refugees in Paris who are anxious to maintain friendly associations with the French Government. They naturally desire to do that, and so they are packing in as much of this kind of thing as possible and using their imagination just as much as many jour-

nalists do. The worst type of propaganda in this country is that which creates the feeling — a feeling which always has an aftermath — that the people of Germany are all ready to revolt.
I was in Germany last September, and even though it is against my own desires I want to say this. To be honest, I cannot see those millions of young men in Germany breaking with the military machine or revolting in any short space of time. Those millions of youths are behind Hitler. There is only one revolt that could take place in Germany, and that is a revolt of the military machine itself. The others are afraid. They are afraid of the Gestapo and of secret agents in the workshops, in the factories, in the streets, and even in the homes. They are not able to express, publicly their feelings, and they have no power, because the real power in war is in the hands of the military, whether it is for or against the government. Therefore, in my estimation a disservice is done to the people of this nation by creating the impression that all is ready for an internal revolt in Germany. I have heard that story everywhere. It is amazing the number of people — business people in this country — who are particularly keen on revolt in Germany. But if you mentioned revolt in this country they would have a paralytic stroke. If it is good for Germany, it would be good for Britain. If it is approved in Germany, then it should be approved in Britain. Do not let us humbug ourselves and the nation into imagining that the people of Germany are ready for revolt.
This German army, in my estimation, will fight as bitterly and ferociously as it is possible for any army in the field to fight. It is a disciplined army, whose members act as robots and not as individuals. They have not had the long experience which we have had in this country of individual freedom and thought. They are used to thinking, not as individuals, but as an army and as a nation. They will fight in that way, and if they are winning victories they will be inspired with fervour and the desire to go on. Not only so, but they will be behind Hitler, because many of them think Hitler is a god. They think that in Germany, and especially the youth, and, to be quite frank, I can understand a large number of the young people of


Germany thinking that of Hitler, because there is any number of things — and I am prepared to be misunderstood by some people who will use it for their own purposes — that Hitler has done in Germany that I should approve of. If you leave out the brutality, the ruthlessness, and the persecution, there are many planks in their social programme that I see as in advance of this country. At the same time, to me the uppermost thing is freedom of thought, whether it be spiritual or economic. It is the right to think and to act on the thought, but the great majority of people only think in animal wants, and if they get food, clothing, shelter, and a little sport, they are prepared to back any Government, no matter how reactionary; they are even prepared to back the National Government.
I have been disturbed by reports that I have heard in Glasgow during the past week. One report has been that the Glasgow Corporation, or magistrates, or town clerk have prohibited and cancelled the lettings of public halls, and they have attempted to put a stop to public meetings being held in the city. Before I heard this, I made arrangements to address a meeting in my own division at 2.30 on Sunday afternoon, to give my point of view to the constituents whom I represent, and I have been told from many quarters that I may not be permitted to hold that meeting, because it will bring together a large number of people in the open. I want to use, not a threat, but a solemn warning to the Government, and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, to this effect: I am not attempting to misuse that power. I will use it in a proper criticism, in presenting my case to the workers or electors of that area; and I want to say this, that there is a greater anti-war feeling in this country than the Government imagine at the moment, and if there is any attempt being made to prevent us from expressing our point of view, it will only be by the use of force that I or others will be prevented from addressing these meetings.
If the Government have ever given instructions to, or are encouraging, the local authorities to put that ban on public meetings, then they are raising in Glasgow a storm before which they will eventually have to bow. I only say that because I do not desire the conflict to take place,

but I do desire to protect our constitutional rights in presenting to the people our case and our point of view. I have even been told that the Glasgow Chief Constable has said that he would not attempt to prevent the meetings because he understood the war was for democracy and freedom of speech, and that he could not conceive of prohibiting meetings in these circumstances, but there are some in Glasgow, conscientious objectors in the last war, who are now prepared to become Hitlers in this war and to prevent public expression in that city; and if it comes to a struggle, then, so far as I am concerned, I will take part in the struggle to protect the rights of the people of this country and to protect the right of public expression. I want from the Secretary of State for Scotland to-night an assurance that he has given no orders to that effect, that he will do everything in his power, in the position that he occupies, to protect the rights of the people in Scotland against any encroachment, because to-day we have heard from an hon. Member on the other side that the Brass Hats are getting in command. That is natural. We have always said that the Brass Hats would attempt to take command of the situation and establish their dictatorship over the people if the civilian population would allow.
In this war, if you are going ahead for three years, there are two or three things that have sobered this nation. One was the passing of conscription for single and married men from 18 to 41. That was the first great sobering Measure which brought to large numbers of homes a realisation of what they were in. The statement that the war would last at least three years, which I do not think is an exaggeration, was the next sobering statement. Now there is this attempt to prevent people from meeting and from enjoying the cinema. If there is one thing more than another destined to bring a revolution in this country, it is the continual closing of the cinemas, because they have become so much a part of the lives of the people. They look forward to going to the cinema, and they are anxious to have recreation. I, personally, enjoy watching Charlie Chaplin, Cagney and the gangsters. I am always reminded of the capitalist class when I see the gangsters. Pictures are the best recreation that the people can get, and everywhere the people are grumbling about this en-


croachment on their enjoyment. I cannot see the need for it. The cinemas could be opened from 10 in the morning to 6 or 7 in the evening, and for those in employment who have no time off except in the evening, the cinemas could be opened on Saturday and even on Sunday from 10 in the morning until dusk.
The Government should not base their policy on something which they cannot carry out for the whole period of the war. If they imagine the country can go through three years of war with the shutting down of every form of recreation, they are making a mistake. If they want to keep the spirit of the people backing the war, they must enable them to get the necessary recreation. It is not enough to make them go home, as I do in the evening, and listen to the wireless bulletins. The tone of voice in which the news is given almost drives me to go for a walk in the dark because it is so depressing, what with the black paper, shaded lights and these wireless stories, which sound like funeral orations.
I think the nation is reaching the stage when in three months they would be prepared to overthrow the Government and give Hitler Poland and Colonel Beck in addition. The Government should have some sense of reality. Glasgow Town Council cancelled a trade union meeting on Sunday afternoon in the City Hall without any notice except a scrap of paper on the door saying that the meeting had been cancelled. The same body allowed a meeting of publicans because the licensed trade is more powerful. If there is a case for the opening of the "pubs," there is a case for the opening of the pictures. I appeal to the Government to give the public an opportunity of enjoying themselves and of keeping their humour, because if there is one thing that has kept me in politics it is my sense of humour. If I had not had it I would have been either dead or out of politics a long time ago. I want an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland that there will be no attempt to interfere with public meetings, because if there is such an attempt it will raise in Glasgow and the country a state of revolt which he in the end will be compelled to recognise and before which he will have to give way. If the people are to be trained to understand that this is a war for freedom, democracy and free speech, you cannot carry on the war

with the suppression of their desires and instincts. I will attempt to be as reasonable as the circumstances will allow. I believe it is wise to have the power of the lion, but it is foolish to use it unless you are compelled to. While I do not want to join in the issues of any challenge, I am prepared to take part in the struggle if any attempt is made to prevent the proper expression of public feeling. I ask the Government to give grave consideration to that point of view, and the Secretary of State to give us the assurance which I have mentioned.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I imagine that the majority of Members of this House, and I am quite certain the great mass of people outside, support the plea which the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has made for a much wider measure of freedom in obtaining recreation and relief from strain. You cannot win a war on gloom — gloom in the streets, and exclusion from cinemas and other places. A war can be won only by maintaining the high spirit of the people, and I join most warmly in the appeal which the hon. Member has made. The hon. Member addressed a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland and I would put one other. There is to be a Debate upon evacuation, and therefore I do not develop the point, but my right hon. Friend must know that serious reports come from most reception areas —

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I would remind my hon. Friend that we are to have a Debate upon evacuation to-morrow.

Mr. Stewart: I did not realise that it was to-morrow; I thought it was next week. But my right hon. Friend must know that serious complaints have come from the reception areas as to the physical conditions of some of those who have been sent to those areas — complaints about infectious diseases and other unsatisfactory bodily conditions, and I wanted my right hon. Friend to give an assurance to-night, before any further evacuation takes place, that no other person will be evacuated in Scotland until there has been a thorough medical examination and that every person has been passed as being in an absolutely proper physical condition.

Mr. Max ton: Would the hon. Member also agree that the home into which the person is going to be put should be subjected to an examination?

FISH DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. Stewart: I am perfectly ready to meet that point, but I want now to be allowed to go on with my speech, because I am trying to submit to the wish of the House. The point I wish to raise refers to the Government's scheme for the distribution of fish. Fish is one of our most important foodstuffs, and the system of distribution is a very delicate machine. On the outbreak of war that machine was suddenly stopped and another introduced in its place. I will not entertain the House with a long explanation of what happened, but I would remind the Minister of half-a-dozen results of that change. The first is that there is not a retailer in the country who has not had his supply of fish very seriously curtailed. Secondly, great numbers of fish merchants, salesmen, agents and others concerned with the transfer of fish from the boats to the retailers' shops, have been actually relieved of their occupations. They came to me last week-end and told me that they have no further job, that their work is at an end. Is that seriously intended? While there is a shortage of fish in the retail shops, I am informed that large quantities of fish have been wasted — left lying in the new depots which have been created under this scheme.
Under the old system, Aberdeen was the principal centre for fish in Scotland. A retailer in my part of the country, Fife, used to phone Aberdeen in the afternoon and receive the fish the next morning. Now he is told he has to go to Perth; and in other parts of the country they have to go to the other depots which have been created. These depots are not suitable for the public, because no arrangements were made in those places. There were no stalls and no sanitary arrangements. The supply of fish has almost stopped in many parts of the country.
I understand that an important conference took place yesterday and that certain amendments were agreed to by the Minister and his advisers in regard to England. I am told, for example, that Morpeth, which was the new depot taking

fish from North Shields, has been abolished as a depot, and that North Shields will resume its former function. Has anything been done like that it Scotland? Is Perth a proper depot? My advice is that it is not suitable at all. Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of restoring the old system in Scotland whereby fish can rapidly and in good condition reach the retailers' establishments. I do not want to be supercritical, because it would not be fair at this moment, but it is the function of Parliament to call attention to the effect of Government Measures. I assure my right hon. Friend that I and every other representative of fishing interests have been overwhelmed by protests during the week-end from people in all walks of life affected by the drastic change in the distribution of fish. If my right hon. Friend cannot do so to-night, I beg that some time in the next two days, say, on Friday, he will make a full statement setting out what he is aiming at. Let him admit, as did the Lord Privy Seal, that mistakes have been made and that alterations will take place. We shall admire him all the more if he admits that mistakes have been made and tells the House that he will do his best to secure a distribution of fish, which is vital to the people.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I appeal to my right hon. Friend to realise that the home fishing industry to-day is in complete chaos because of this unworkable scheme, which is condemned by every branch, without exception, in the industry — owners, of boats, skippers, crews, Transport and General Workers' Union branches, retailers, fish merchants and fish buyers. There is no doubt about the existence of burning indignation against this, absurd and unworkable scheme. That is how it appears to the fish industry. I want my right hon. Friend to realise what happens. Up till recently, in a port like Lowestoft, fish was landed at six o'clock in the morning, sold at 8.30, bought at the market by the merchants, fish buyers and so on, as fresh fish, and the price was made up. The men knew on the same day exactly what they were to get, and so did the owners and skippers.
Under this scheme the fish is landed and taken to Norwich, 25 miles away. It was kept in one instance for several


days until it was stale. It is sold at Norwich, and merchants and fish buyers have to go from Lowestoft to Norwich, wasting petrol, 25 miles there and 25 miles back. At Norwich, they have to form up in a long queue and take any fish, even fish that is several days old. Heretofore, they had been able to buy fish within an hour or two of its landing. Under this scheme, hundreds of tons of good fish have been wasted by being allowed to go so stale that it could not be sold for human food. I said that skippers, owners and men knew, under the old scheme, exactly the value of the catch that they landed and how much they were to get. Now they do not. The fish is sent to Norwich, and they have not the slightest idea whether it is sold as fine, fresh fish or as stale fish. They do not know the price they will get, and they do not know the remuneration the men will get — although I understand that there are 89 accountants at St. John's College, Oxford, to work out what the men should receive.
At the end of the last War we had in Lowestoft, I understand, three paid officials to deal with the fishing industry. Now, I understand that there are in Lowestoft 32 full-time paid officials, and, in addition, 46 other full-time paid officials living in Lowestoft who go to Norwich every day. That is a total of 78 paid officials living in Lowestoft whereas in the last War there were three. And last week we landed 32 tons of fish. There are many things that I would like to point out, but I will finish as soon as I can. The price at which herrings were sold during the last War was 6d. a pound — £ 9 16s. a cran. Under the present scheme, the price that the public pays is to be exactly the same, £ 16s. a cran; but the price that the catchers, the men who are going out and risking their lives, are to get is half what it was, the difference going in increased expenses. During the last War £6 6s. of this £ 16s. went to the fishers for best fish; and, for second quality fish, £4 18s. Now, the maximum price that goes to the fishers is £2 16s. a cran. This must mean that the administrative costs in the last War were £3 10s. a cran, and that they are now going to be £7 a cran; and the man who is going to bear the loss is the man who catches the fish, while these masses of officials swallow up the rest.
Fish deteriorates rapidly. Hitherto, the fish were caught and landed at Lowestoft or Yarmouth, and curing was started at once. Now, these perishable fish are sent to Norwich, where the curers have to go and queue up, in order to get the fish stale, and then bring it back to the curing houses at Lowestoft or Yarmouth. The proper scheme to work is that which was in operation in the concluding year of the last War. It may be said that there was profiteering then. If there was profiteering in fish — and I do not admit that there was — it was not during the War, but immediately after. In the latter part of the War there was good, cheap administration and a fair remuneration for the fishermen. It would be much better to scrap the whole of this fantastic, unworkable, grotesquely extravagant scheme and its personnel, and put in charge an official who knows his job. I suggest that the former Permanent Secretary of the Department of Fisheries or the present Secretary of the Department could do this job, and would be trusted by the fishing industry — which the present personnel is not — and that the work would then be done efficiently at an infinitely small fraction of the present cost.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Richard Acland: I want to go back to the subject with which we opened this Debate and to ask the Minister a question on a point which is very much puzzling me. What is a voluntary censorship? Does it mean that it is entirely within the discretion of editors whether or not they publish only the news which the Government ask them to publish? Do I understand that absolutely nothing whatever happens to any editor if he is not a gentleman and chooses to publish something which the Government advise him not to publish? If that is not the case, and if something were to happen to an editor who infringed, under what regulation or power would it happen? I ask that question because I believe that there have been regulations issued in relation to what the Press may or may not do. I would like to know under what powers these regulations were made, because we were given an assurance that regulations would not be made in relation to the Press under the Emergency Powers Act. It is my belief that some of these regulations are extremely far-reaching, such as, that editors are advised, in the framework of this gentlemen's agreement or under


regulations for which they can be penalised, that they must not publish anything which would influence public opinion in a way detrimental to the carrying on of the war. That, of course, is a phrase which the Government can interpret in any way they like.
For example, I would like to know whether the editors in fishing ports will be advised to-night that it would be rather an ungentlemanly act to publish in full, with a large headline, the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus)? Will that kind of information be sent to editors, and, if so, what will happen to any editor who makes use of the speech which we have just heard by putting headlines right across the paper and printing the speech in full? If anything happens to that editor, under what regulation will it happen? And if there is such a regulation, is that not a breach of the assurance which we were given that no regulations would be made in relation to the Press under the Emergency Powers Act, which the Opposition gave to the Government in about three or four hours a little while ago?
This point is important because it affects the moral of the country. In the last War there was a tremendous outburst of public opinion bitterly hostile to the Government because of the way they were conducting the War in relation to munitions, and unquestionably that outburst of public opinion achieved useful results in the prosecution of the War. What the public will want to know is whether, if they see in the newspaper no substantial criticism of the way in which the Government are carrying on, they are to take it that that means that those in the know are finding that there is nothing to criticise, or are they to interpret it as if a Government censorship is stifling criticism? The country is entitled to know exactly what this voluntary censorship really means. What are the powers of the Government over editors, and under what regulations have they those powers? In what way are those powers going to be used to suppress criticism of the way in which affairs are being handled by this Government?

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I desire to return to the fish problem, more particularly with

regard to the administration of the scheme. I speak on behalf of a city which is a victim of the scheme — the City of Sheffield. For some inscrutable reason, Sheffield has to get its fish now from Chesterfield. Why Chesterfield should be the fish centre for Sheffield, I do not know. It seems to me utterly absurd that an important city with 550,000 inhabitants should be placed in regard to its fish supply under Chesterfield, 16 miles away. I have been in touch with a number of the fish fryers in Sheffield, who number about 500. Let me give one illustration of a fish fryer who went to Chesterfield last week. He got up at 5 o'clock in the morning, paid 2s. for a return bus ticket to Chesterfield, he was at Chesterfield about five hours, and he had to come back without any fish. He had spent 2s., wasted five hours of valuable time, and did not get any fish. Why make Chesterfield the distributing fish centre for Sheffield? What is amiss with Sheffield? It has a fish market, and it is a large city. If it is a question of vulnerability and the disposition of distributing centres in a number of places, why not select Sheffield and by so doing allay a lot of discontent? Chesterfield is an altogether unsuitable place for this purpose, so far as Sheffield is concerned. The arrangement puts the fish fryers of Sheffield to all kinds of inconveniences. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will rectify it at the earliest opportunity.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Salt: I regret that I must continue the Debate in regard to fish supply, and particularly to give details as to the position in Birmingham. It is no exaggeration to say that during the last few days there has been absolute chaos there. Last week, on Monday and Tuesday, no fish came into Birmingham at all, and very little came on the Wednesday, but on the Thursday 240 tons came in, as against the average supply of 100 tons per day. Consequently, there was enormous waste and many tons of good fish had to be thrown away. The fish supply in the City of Birmingham is different from that in London. The demand is of a different type. What is suitable for Birmingham is not suitable for London, and vice versa, but these facts seem to be quite ignored now that new men are employed. I would particularly stress the fact that due to the new management


and the new control, staffs have been dismissed. It seems incredible to think that men who have been working on the railways, employed in the delivery of fish, have all been dismissed.
Merchants who have been in the fish business all their lives and have been distributing practically the whole of the 100 tons of fish per day have been very seriously affected. In one case a man with 42 employ é s has been reduced to three. A total of 170 people — fish salesmen, clerks and fish buyers have been dismissed. The fish is sent to the railway station instead of to the very adequate fish market in Birmingham, which has been responsible in the past for the delivery of fish within a radius of 20 miles of the city. Some 1,000 small retail fish shops are seriously affected. These shops are in the habit of taking small quantities, but in the first instance they were prohibited from taking anything but a quantity far in excess of what they wanted. Consequently, they could not purchase at all. The wholesale fish merchants, who would have broken up the fish into small parcels, were unable to say why this course was adopted. The Lord Mayor of Birmingham, whom I saw yesterday, had a long telephonic conversation lasting, I believe, 35 minutes, with the controller, and he was told that until he could be informed that Birmingham was all clear, he would not longer send fish to the city. It seems incredible that anyone could say such a thing to the Lord Mayor of Birmingham and to a city like Birmingham. I hope that the Minister will scrap the present system.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Boulton: I want to refer to what the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Marshall) has said with regard to the distribution of fish in Sheffield. Sheffield has 550,000 inhabitants and the market has been put at Chesterfield, 16 miles away. Why, nobody can tell. I hope the Minister will realise the seriousness of this matter because there are not 500 fish friers in Sheffield but 700, and these fish friers will have to buy their fish at Chesterfield, going there at their own expense and sometimes coming back without fish. The scheme is impracticable, and I am advised that over a period you are going to run the risk of losing hundreds of tons of fish by this method. I suggest that there is no reason what-

ever why fish should not be sent from Grimsby in bulk to Sheffield, each purchaser putting in what he wants and getting it sent with his own label direct from Grimsby to Sheffield. I hope that this serious matter will have the early attention of the Minister.

7.28 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: It is obvious from the speeches we have heard that this scheme is not doing what it was intended to do. I understand that the hon. Member for the Rusholme Division (Mr. Radford) saw the Minister last week and indicated the difficulties arising in Manchester. I did not know until now that the trouble was general. I knew that in Manchester and Birmingham the scheme had broken down, and it is the fact that all concerned in the trade in Manchester and in Birmingham reported that the scheme was not working. In this matter one must have regard to the diary of events, because I do not think we can blame the right hon. Gentleman, the present Minister, for the scheme or the appointment of the individual who does not understand how to administer it. The right hon. Gentleman has unfortunately fallen heir to this thing. His trouble is what is going to be done now; and that is why I intervene. I want to remind him that in Manchester the scheme broke down on the first day and has not worked on any day since. The controller is not sufficiently acquainted with the ramifications of the trade and has not the confidence of the people in the trade, and I think he should be relieved of his post. It comes to this, that really there was no need to impose the scheme at all. There was no shortage, and there was no difficulty in distribution.
These schemes of control, necessary as they are in many instances and will be in the case of most supplies at some stage, at least are not necessary in the case of fish at the present time. The unfortunate thing is that the scheme was put into force in a hurry when it really was not needed and before my right hon. Friend had time to look at the papers relating to it. In view of the fact that there is no trouble about supplies and no impediment to distribution through the ordinary channels, provided there is some safeguard against profiteering, I think he would have the support and acclamation of every one if he could see his way to scrap the scheme and get another drawn


up to guard against imposition, if that becomes necessary. If he can do that, there is no doubt that the trade can look after the job in the meantime. There is no need for this cumbersome machinery, which is denying supplies to people who want them, which is sending species of fish to markets where they cannot sell them, which is putting thousands of fish workers out of work whilst other people who do not understand it are brought in. If my right hon. Friend can see his way to suspend the thing for the time being and wind it up whilst he evolves a workable scheme, that is the most equitable way to deal with it.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: Reference has been made to the utterly chaotic conditions which those representing the ports have discovered to exist during the last few-days. I am, however, hopeful that the Minister will be able to tell us shortly that very unsatisfactory features of the scheme, or let us hope the scheme itself, will be scrapped. Therefore I will not speak with all the feeling with which I could have spoken, and still intended to speak after attending what can only be described as an indignation meeting at Newlyn last night. But there is one matter to which I must particularly refer because, unless it is dealt with speedily, not only will the fish supply in Cornwall break down but it will lead for certain—and I know what I am talking about—to a riot. The situation that I discovered was as follows. Our fishermen had ceased fishing, our salesmen had ceased selling, our buyers had ceased buying, local fish workers were off and in their place there had been brought down people from Grimsby who knew nothing about local conditions at all and who, I was told though it may only be rumour, were receiving salaries for doing what our people do every day for no extra emoluments. The result may be imagined. Not only was the fish supply in the district completely disorganised. It was non-existent, and feeling was such that I apprehended a riot. I know that the Minister has had his mind brought to bear on the matter and I am grateful for the speedy way in which he gave his attention to it when I brought it to his notice this morning. I hope we are going to have some news at once.

7.34 p.m.

Mr. Mander: As President of the Wolverhampton Fish and Chip Association, I wholeheartedly associate myself with the remarks which have been made on the subject of this scheme, which affects us as seriously as other parts of the country, and I hope serious attention will be given to it.
I want to say a few words on the subject of war aims, which is one of the most important questions that will arise in the successful prosecution of the war, which I, as much as anybody else, want to see carried to a successful conclusion. To-day the Prime Minister was asked a question on this subject, and he replied that certain statements on the subject had already been made by the Government and that further declarations would be made from time to time. I suggest that before those further declarations of war aims are made, consultations should take place with the Opposition parties with a view to seeing that when a full and final statement is made it will carry with it the full assent of all parties in the House.
As far as I could gather from the statement made by the Prime Minister to-day, he said that we are fighting for three things mainly—the carrying out of our pledge to Poland and the restoration of liberty to Poland, the restoration of liberty to Czecho-Slovakia, and the destruction of Hitlerism. I venture to think that if we are to rally the enthusiasm and idealism of many young people in this country to full support of the war, it will be necessary to go further than that, and to look beyond the war, to make it clear that we are fighting for the establishment of a system afterwards which will, as far as human beings can devise it, make it impossible for anything of this kind to take place again. If that can be secured, there will be some justification for the general sacrifices; but if this is to be just one episode in a long series, with a similar slaughter every 25 years, it will not make a very great appeal to the idealism of those who are asked to take part in the war.
Surely, what we come back to is this. During the last few years there have been questions of going into isolation and just linking up with one or two friends; but by the events of last March, surely we have been driven back, by the present


policy of the Government, to the collective system. One may call it a collective system, one may call it a system of mutual aid, or general guarantees, but in fact, it is based on the principles of the League of Nations. I do not say that that body in its present form is exactly what we want to revive, but obviously that is the one living institution in the world which embodied in some manner, and for a time very successfully, the very ideals of the collective system of joint action against aggression for which we are fighting at the present time. I hope it will be made clear that, whatever changes may have to be made in the form of the League, something of that kind is one of the chief aims for which we are fighting. One other point also should be ambodied, and that is that, following the war, there must be a disarmament convention in which all countries will agree mutually to reduce their armaments to a proper level and that international inspection will take place to see that, in fact, they are carrying out the promises which they have given.
One other point which I wish to make with reference to this matter concerns a question that was put to the Prime Minister to-day about the forthcoming meeting of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations which, in the ordinary course, would be taking place at the present time. The answer was to the effect that the French Government and His Majesty's Government had proposed to the Secretary-General of the League that the meetings of the Council and Assembly should be postponed because in present circumstances it would be impossible for their delegations to reach Geneva. We understand the difficulties of the present moment in that regard, but I should have thought that for a day or a couple of days one Minister, perhaps the Secretary of State for the Dominions, might have been spared to go by air to Geneva to the meeting of the Assembly and there make a statement of the British case.
If it is the case that Geneva is inaccessible at present, I hope the Government will give careful consideration to holding the meeting of the Assembly in either Paris or London. I am sure there would be no international objections. While it may be difficult in present circumstances and having regard to the way in which the League has been treated in

the past, to invoke the Covenant and to make use of the various clauses that ought now to be functioning as part of the ordinary method of meeting the situation, there is no reason at all why a leading Minister, who is noted for his interest in League principles, should not go to the Assembly, and, without necessarily involving any division or putting any resolution, make a full statement of the British case and make clear to the world the exact reasons, from the League point of view, why we have entered into this war. If we did that, even with the League in its present condition, we could rely on a tremendous volume of moral support from nations in every part of the world that would be a real assistance to us, together with the many other steps which we are taking, to see that the great cause of liberty and democracy for which we are fighting triumphs in the end and as soon as possible.

7.43 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The lion. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) will forgive me if I do not follow him in the points of high policy which he has raised, and if I deal with the humbler though very important question of fish which has been so prominently before me for the last few days. The representations which we have heard this evening from hon. Members on this subject, and representations made to me by other hon. Members who have not spoken in the Debate—one being the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) —and the evidence which reaches me, make it obvious that this scheme is not working well. When one considers the magnitude of the transaction as a whole, the changing over the food trades from peace-time to war-time conditions, I think I am fortunate in being able to report that this fish business is the only major difficulty, though there have been minor points to adjust, which we have so far encountered
May I first say a word on the scheme itself and its objects? I have been urged by hon. Members and in many representations from outside to consider this matter in the light of our experience at the end of the last War. The suggestion underlying that argument is that conditions now are much the same. I would point out at once that when this scheme


was framed, the contingency of heavy sustained air attack in the early part of the war had to be provided against and in all these plans for dealing with food in war-time the principle of decentralisation, as far as it could reasonably be adopted, has been made a feature. While in normal peace-time trading, it is possible to have one great depot where exchange takes place, or a few great central depots, such concentration in a vulnerable area under war conditions might be a source of danger and dislocation. So Billingsgate market was moved and its activities transferred to a less vulnerable area. Similarly in other markets where it was thought the distribution of fish might otherwise be impeded unduly, a system of decentralisation of depots was carried out. The facts of the situation are that up to date we have not had to contend with the dangers against which that provision was made, and consequently that provision bears a meaningless appearance to people in the light of actual circumstances, but it was done as a precaution against an unforeseeable future which we had to contemplate and prepare for.
Another feature that we have to bear in mind about the fish industry in time of war is this, that you must be prepared to contemplate a reduced intake of fish, at the beginning of the war in particular, because trawlers are commandeered—that has happened in these last few days—and many other causes of a Defence nature do prevent the normal intake of fish from being available. In these circumstances I am sure the House will agree that we ought to do what we can to ensure that if you have a reduced intake of fish from the ocean, that intake should be distributed as equitably as possible over the whole country, so that as far as practicable, each centre gets its due share of what is going. Another feature which I am sure the House will agree to is that we must do our best to make sure that there is no such rise in the price of fish as a result of the war as would deny to the poorer sections of the people their due share of this important food. These are the things which the scheme sets out to do.
Now let me say a word or two about what has been said. I am aware that this

scheme framed for conditions which, we are thankful to say, were different from what they are to-day, may have been misconceived to that degree. It may be that in the light of certain circumstances a less interruption of normal channels of trade would have worked, but the position that we have now to face is that we have to make such amendments to and adjustments in this scheme as it exists to-day as will secure its smooth working in the light of experience, and will assure the points on which I have laid stress, namely, an equitable distribution of our food, control of its price, and making it available to all sections of the people. And we must remember that the community will not grudge to these men, who go out to sea, especially now, when conditions are more perilous than usual, their proper remuneration. All this is complicated by the facts that fish is a very perishable commodity and that the trade itself is an exceedingly complicated one, requiring a great deal of knowledge of detail to administer properly. These are the features which characterise our problem.
I am not going at this stage—and I am sure the House would not expect me to do so—to make a complete statement as to what is proposed, because the Ministry of Food has only been in existence a few days, and those days have been occupied with trying to grasp this very complicated problem of fish, along with a lot of other very necessary things that have had to be done. But I can assure the House, in the first place, that I am not at all satisfied with the state of affairs that exists at the present moment, and that I intend to do what I can, and as speedily as I can, to put these matters right. Already in some cases we have been able to make minor adjustments which have brought considerable relief, and I can assure the House that the pressure to achieve the ends that we have in view will be unremitting on our part and that we shall do what we can to evolve a workable scheme. At the same time, I ask the House to remember, in fairness to the framers of the scheme, that they did draw it up contemplating a state of affairs that might easily have followed and that it was their duty to contemplate. With that, I would ask


the House to accept my assurance that we are doing our best to put the matter right.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: May I ask the Minister whether we can have some better assurance as to the date of the changes? I do not think it would be reasonable to ask for details of the changes, but we realty must not be put off with the suggestion that this matter is only two days old in its grasping by the Department. The Ministry of Food came into operation only two days ago, but it took over the Food Defence (Plans) Department, and our complaints about this fish matter have been with the Department for many days. We have been severely handicapped by this being the first Department to clear out of London and in not beingable to get at the directors of it. We have urged for a week or two that until the new scheme was ready the trade should be assisted through ordinary trade channels, and that could be done to-morrow morning.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend give an immediate assurance that at a very early date he will fix maximum prices? In my part of the world the price of fish has multiplied three times, and that is a scandal which cannot be justified.

Mr. Garro Jones: I was disturbed about the reference which the Minister made to the reduction of size, but in spite of that there is not plenty of fish. There are 300 trawlers in my constituency and at one time there were only five at sea. As far as I can see, the ban on fishing over considerable areas of fishing grounds has not been removed. What plans has the Minister in being to maintain the production of fish, either by setting up the mechanism for landing the fish in less vulnerable parts, or by equipping vessels to fish in less vulnerable grounds? Unlesswe deal with the production side it is little use trying to deal with the distribution side.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) asked me to name a date when I shall be able to announce what is necessary. The announcement he would like me to make is, as other hon. Members have suggested, that this scheme should be put in abeyance or abolished and that the trade should be left in the

meantime to make its own provision for supplies. I ask the House not to expect me to say that now, because there is this point to remember among others. The defence considerations involved must not be ignored and must be kept fairly before our eyes, and trading under war-time conditions in this commodity must necessarily differ from that in peace-time. If one goes back to private enterprise after having started the scheme, there may be great difficulties in getting back to a proper system of control. Although I feel acutely the disadvantages which the public in some cases are suffering as the result of the operation of this scheme, I feel very reluctant—and I ask the House to be with me in this—to abandon control of this important commodity for fear of the consequences of profiteering that may take place for a short time, for once we got enhanced profits being made it would be as difficult as getting butter out of a dog's mouth to make a change. I can assure the House that there is no avoidable delay in my Department.
In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), it is a fact that there is a curtailed supply of fish. Trawlers have been requisitioned and there have been limitations of the sort which he mentioned and which must take place. There was also wastage of fish during the heat-wave of last week, but most of the short supply does come from short landings. We have to take every step we can to make sure, first, in conjunction with the Admiralty, that fishing can be extended as soon as it is safe, and also that all measures are taken for the encouragement of distribution in the fish trade. I should like the House to believe that I have the production side before me, because the most elaborate machinery of distribution would be o f no avail if there were no fish.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I wish to say a word about the fish position, because it is causing serious alarm in my part of the world. Particularly I would refer to what the Minister said about the reduced intake of fish, because to my mind the scheme which is operating at the moment is not making the most of the reduced supply which does come to hand, and I am sure that is contrary to what the Minister would desire. The Minister reminded us, also, that fish is very perishable, and there is


a point in connection with that to which I would draw his attention. I received this week-end a deputation of inshore fishermen and line fishermen, and they pointed out how there may be a very grave waste of the fish which they are catching. North Shields has been a very important fishing centre for the north-east coast—perhaps the greatest port in England for inshore fishing and line fishing. That centre has been removed to Morpeth, and it has led to a grievance in regard to shell fish in particular. In the past shell fish has been taken alive to Shields in the early morning, but it is pointed out that as a result of the new arrangements these shell fish are collected in the afternoon and that probably the greater part of them are dead when the buyers get them. Anyone with experience of sending this produce to market will have a fair idea of what the rejects amount to when the man get from the market his account showing how the fish has been disposed of, and that position will now be accentuated, because as the fish have been collected in the afternoon and then have to go to some other place the wastage will be very high.
In regard to white fish, in the past they have been collected by the wholesaler and consumed on the day they were caught. Under this scheme they too are collected in the afternoon, and are not in the market until next morning, and I cannot think that that arrangement makes the most of the fish caught locally. In regard to control I hope it will be possible to work out a system of control. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is working Socialism. There is no reason why we should not work Socialism intelligently. In the last War there were several attempts at Socialism but the capitalists were working it all the time with the intention that the industries should go back to private enterprise. We found that happening in the coal mines. Then it was said "Look what you had when there was national control." The right hon. Member does not want profiteering. I am just inclined to think—can I have the Tight hon. Gentleman's attention, because this is rather important? I think I have a right to his attention, because if I have riot I am going to know the reason why.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I had no intention of being discourteous.

Mr. Taylor: I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman; I am blaming the hon. Member behind him. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not be discourteous. I have always found him one of the most courteous Members in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious that things should not get out of control and lead to profiteering. I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman will produce an effect of profiteering, even with his control. The expenses of working this ill-digested scheme are such as to raise the price now. In addition to that you cannot get the fish. There are your two obstacles.
In my area is a man who has built up a business during the last 20 years and has given the greatest possible satisfaction, supplying, I should say. 40,000 people. He had his own wagons and he has been taking the fish from Shields. Everything was working quite smoothly until this scheme was introduced. It has wiped him out of business. One result is that the porterage of the fish has increased to such an extent that what would have cost £20 per week in that man's business now costs £50. That kind of increase will reflect itself in the price of fish. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman had better look into this matter, because, although he wishes to stop profiteering, the price of the fish will make people think that profiteering is rampant. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given us a very good assurance. It would have been better to leave things as they were until you have worked out a scheme to work more or less smoothly., and under which people would know that they would get their share of even a limited quantity of fish. Fish fryers in my district told me this week-end that they might as well shut up their shops, because they were selling practically nothing but potatoes. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he will be able to put this industry back upon something like an even keel.

THE WAR SITUATION.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Robert Gibson: Certain representations have been made to me regarding the information muddle as it affects chiefly Scotland and my own constituency. On Tuesday of last week there appeared in the Press reports of interviews with sur-


vivors of the "Athenia" who had landed at Galway in Ireland. On the same morning information was available to Pressmen in Scotland that other survivors were coming up the Clyde and were expected to land far up, at Old Kilpatrick. Newspapermen congregated there expecting survivors to land. Owing to fog they did not get so far, but were landed at the Albert Dock in Greenock.
In Greenock we have an afternoon newspaper which comes out every day in four issues. The reporters of that paper got interviews from the survivors who landed in Greenock, and on that day the editor of the "Greenock Telegraph" wired to London asking whether the Ministry would say whether there was any objection to publishing the interviews with the survivors who had landed. No reply was received. The editor then had copies typed in duplicate of those interviews and sent them to the Ministry in London requesting the Ministry to wire an O.K. so that the matter might be published on the following day, Wednesday. During Tuesday morning, interviews with these survivors who had disembarked at Greenock were secured by the Press Association. These interviews came into the offices of the "Greenock Telegraph," and were prepared for publication in the one o'clock edition. Another message came, holding up all reference to these interviews; so they could not be published in that edition. Later that afternoon, information came that the Admiralty had consented to publication of the interviews. On the following day, a reply came to the wire which had been sent. It stated that all matters must be submitted to the Ministry in full in the usual way. This had been done already, and the matter must have been in the hands of the Ministry in duplicate. No reply was received to the request to publish the matter that had been submitted. It was not until the Friday that this matter was returned, marked "Passed for publication." By then, of course, it was entirely useless as news matter. That is a state of affairs that calls for explanation and, I submit, for very sweeping changes of method.
There is one other matter to which I desire to call attention. In Greenock the newspaper men occasionally receive bulletins from the "Ministry of Information, Scottish Regional Office," at an

address in Edinburgh. They are at a loss to know the position of this body. Does it supersede the body in London, or is it supplementary to that body? To which office are the newspapermen in Scotland, and particularly in Greenock, to look, as the authoritative body affecting their business?

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to return to the question of the Ministry of Information. It is very necessary that we should criticise the amount and the character of the information that the Ministry gives out, but we should be deserving of severe censure if we, in turn, did not supply the Ministry with information. In the last hour or two quite a lot of information has been supplied to the Ministry on the question of the fishing industry. I want to return to something very different, and of very great importance.
I said in this House the other day that, whatever might be said about the calmness and resolution of the people of this country, there was not a mother in this country whose heart was not filled with dread, and that account should be taken of that. I am more than ever convinced, as a result of my experiences throughout the country since the House last met, that that is true. I have been in many homes where the lads have been taken away. In every part of the country mothers' hearts are filled with dread as to the future. Yet we get the Ministry of Information sending out information through the radio that we are preparing for a three years' war. We are getting statements such as that we are going to fight until we get victory. If this is true, a whole new generation is going to be wiped out. Is that the way to win people around for a great, and presumably a noble, cause: to say that we are going to wipe out a whole generation, to carry on another war like the last War, to attain a victory of the Allies over the Germans? Is that the information which the Ministry send out? If they send out that sort of information they will nullify everything done by the propaganda in Germany. I agree that it is desirable to make propaganda in Germany and in all countries, but it must be much better propaganda than the character of the propaganda contained in the leaflets dropped in Germany. But no matter how good the propaganda in


Germany may be, to send out propaganda for the victory of the Allies over Germany, and proclaiming a three years' war in order to accomplish it, can undo all that has been done and is something that I shall fight against with all the power I possess.
For what is this war being fought? It should be understood by the Ministry of Information when dealing with this question that what is important is the defeat of Fascism. If you are to defeat Fascism those who are responsible for the Ministry of Information and for other Departments must be clear of Fascism themselves. The one thing that is of the greatest importance from the point of view of the Ministry of Information, of propaganda and of the Ministry of Supply is that the efforts that are being made in district after district to establish Fascist methods in this country should be stopped right away.
I do not want to have to go into the situation in Glasgow further than to say that I have put down a question for some day next week regarding two lads who were handing out leaflets near a factory. A million of these leaflets have been circulated in this country. These lads were handing them to workers. Two detectives came over and took the lads to the police station where they discussed whether they could make a charge against them under the Defence of the Realm Act. One of the detectives looked over the Defence of the Realm Act and expressed the belief that there was a certain Section under which they could make a charge. The lads were put into the cells for four hours, and before they were liberated they were warned not to distribute any more leaflets pending the development of the charge against them. This sort of thing cannot be allowed to go on. Reference was made by an hon. Member to the fishing industry and to the fact that somebody in conversation with the Lord Mayor of Birmingham said that they would not get any fish in Birmingham. Comments were made all round of the Hitler-like character of such an individual as that. You are getting them all over as a result of the repressive organisation that is being developed.
We must make it clear that it is not a question of the victory of the Allies over Germany, but of the defeat of

Fascism, and only those who are free from Fascism are capable of carrying on that propaganda or that fight. I have been speaking to one or two of the lads who are already in uniform. They would be very happy if something could happen to take them out of uniform and allow them to go back to civil life, with the hope of the future that every youth desires. Therefore, it is necessary for us to see that we do everything possible to get administrative activities in this country and responsible people of such a character as to bring about not only the maximum of encouragement to the German people, but the guarantee of cooperation with the German people to bring about peace in Europe. That is the big thing that we must put before the people of this country and the people of Europe, not only the German people but the people of the neutral countries. That is the character that our information and our propaganda must take. That is the only possible hope of saving the masses of our young people. I would ask hon. Members to do everything that is necessary in order to ensure that there will be no question of a war such as we had on the last occasion, when masses of young men were marched out to slaughter without any regard for the human suffering and agony caused all over the country.
When we consider the statements made by the Prime Minister about the propaganda for helping forward the war, the organisation of supplies for war, and the various other organisations that are being built up in order to bring about an early end of the war, and lasting peace in Europe, the one thing that we hear nothing about is the reorganisation of the Government. Yet the one thing that is demanded is the reorganisation of the Government. The Government is not trusted by the country, and all the efforts of the Ministry of Information and all the propaganda that is put out will never remedy that serious defect unless there is reorganisation. There is no more erratic political leader than the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), but when he was included in the Cabinet there was a feeling of satisfaction all over the country. What did that feeling of satisfaction represent? It represented a lack of confidence in the Government. Therefore, when we are considering information, it is most important that the


people should get information that will satisfy them as to the character of the central authority. If we are to conduct the war for the defeat of Fascism, then we must have a Government free from Fascism, a Government that will not only encourage the German people but will cooperate with the German people in order to put an end to the terrible conditions that exist to-day and to bring about lasting peace in Europe.

Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

8.19 p.m.

the Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Part I applies to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and the colleges and halls within those universities, and the Colleges of Winchester and Eton. These are the institutions which are dealt with by the Universities and College Estates Act, 1925, which this Bill proposes to amend in certain particulars. Part II applies only to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and to the colleges within those universities, and it provides for alteration of procedure applicable to those institutions as laid down in the Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1923. I want to make it clear that the Bill simply deals with institutions covered by the two Acts. It is similar to an Act which was passed during the last War in March, 1915, leave to introduce the Bill being moved by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Attorney-General. May I read a passage from his speech which is as true to-day as it was then:
 Every part of the community has made a ready and a full response to the call of the country for men to join the armed forces of the Crown, but nowhere has the response been more prompt and spirited than in our ancient universities." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1915; col. 179, Vol. 70.]
When Lord Oxford, who was then Mr. Asquith, as Prime Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill he gave

certain details as to what had been done. I shall not trouble the House with any details, but I would like to pay a tribute to the evidence which we have had of the response in the institutions and of the work that has been done in organising their effort in one capacity or another. The result of war conditions on these institutions will of course be a very substantial loss of revenue; fewer students obviously mean less in university and college fees and dues. Part I of the Bill reproduces corresponding provisions of the Act of 1915 and enables the various bodies concerned to draw on the future for the needs of the present.

Mr. Dalton: As I understand it, Part I applies to universities and colleges at large, and Part II to Oxford and Cambridge only.

The Attorney-General: That is not quite correct. Part I applies to Oxford and Cambridge and to Durham, and to the colleges of Winchester and Eton. Those are the institutions dealt with by the Act of 1925. Other universities, which of course have similar problems, will also require legislation, and they are already in touch with the appropriate Departments. Their needs will be considered and dealt with in the appropriate way. There has to be a separate Bill dealing with these institutions which are covered by the Acts to which I have referred. Clause I enables the institutions to bororow not only the capital charges, but for making good any deficiencies in revenue due to war conditions, and Clause 2 enables the period of repayment of existing loans to be extended in appropriate cases. I think that that sufficiently explains the effect of Part I.
Part II, which applies only to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, alters the procedure for the making of Statutes, that is to say college or university Statutes, which is laid down in the Universities (Oxford and Cambridge) Act, 1923. Under that Act universities and colleges, in order to make any alterations or amendments in their Statutes, have to go through a somewhat cumbrous and elaborate procedure before the Privy Council. That procedure cannot be got through expeditiously and it also involves certain expenses. This Bill, therefore, like the Bill in 1915, confers on those universities and colleges power to make


emergency Statutes dealing with the various matters set out in Clause 5. I can, perhaps, take one or two as examples, and the House will see the general nature of the provision. In Clause 5 (a) an emergency Statute may be made for postponing, until any date not later than the end of the period of the present emergency, the election or admission to any office in the university or in any college. That is to say, a college, under its Statute, may have power to appoint a certain person to the office of tutor or professor. Owing to the shortage, or absence, of students it may be quite unnecessary to fill that office until the end of the emergency. That would require an alteration in the Statute. This will enable that alteration to be made, subject to certain safeguards, in an expeditious and cheap manner.
If one looks down the various provisions, I think they are all matters which may well arise as the result of the effect of war and are a proper matter in respect of which this power of making emergency Statutes should be conferred. They follow in their main outlines the Act of 1915. I have received communications from the Burgesses of Oxford and Cambridge and there are one or two quite minor points to which they have drawn our attention. They can be dealt with, if necessary, in Committee, but I do not think that they are points that I need trouble the House with at the moment.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: We have not had long to look at the Bill and there may be complexities not visible on the surface, but on the surface it appears to be common sense. I gather, however, that there are other universities not covered by this, and I hope we can be assured that they will be treated not less considerately in so far as their differing circumstances may require it. I think the Attorney-General said that other legislation would be brought in later to deal with them.
The Attorney-General: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not want to press me too far, but I can give him an assurance that the sort of points with which the Bill deals, as far as other universities require them to be dealt with, as they will, will receive consideration. Obviously, the general intention will be to give other

universities and colleges the same latitude which has been given to Oxford and Cambridge and the other institutions covered by this Bill. Whether and in what cases legislation may be necessary and in what cases the matter can be dealt with without legislation, I cannot say at the moment; but if in particular cases legislation on similar lines is necessary, subject to discussion between the university concerned and the Department, that legislation will be introduced..

Mr. Dalton: I am allowing the Bill to go with rather few comments at this stage only because I assume that it is a mere legal chance, as it were, that the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Durham happen to need this kind of Bill; and I am taking it for granted—and if later on it turns out not to be correct, we shall have some criticism to make—that all other universities and university colleges will be treated not less favourably than these, in so far as their separate situations may require it. I assume that is so clear that I need not press the matter further.
There is a general point which I think it will be in order for me to raise here, and perhaps we may have a reply from the Attorney-General when I have made a few further observations. It is a financial matter which affects universities at large, including Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and it concerns the University Grants arrangements. Certain proposals are made here which partake of the nature of unsound finance. One of the things they are allowed to do is to treat capital as income. Within limits that may be justified by surrounding circumstances, but I hope the Government are not going to force any university or university college to eat its capital merely because they are going to cut off sustenance through the University Grants Committee. Clearly, there is to be no full university life in any real sense of the term during the war. There will be only the ghost of a university life flitting through this country, but nevertheless, it is worth while keeping in that ghost a semblance of life until such time as the war shall end and the youth of this country shall again enter into what is left of its heritage. Therefore, I ask for an assurance that there are not going to be pettifogging economies by wav of the University Grants Committee. I should


feel happier—and I am sure others share my feelings—if we could be given a definite assurance that it is not at present contemplated that the University Grants Committee shall be cut at this stage. It is a comparatively small sum which they get compared with the vast expenditure on war and on many other peace-time purposes, and I hope that the Attorney-General may be able to tell us that, for the time being, at any rate, the University Grants will be maintained in their entirety until we can see a little more clearly just what the next stage is in the wartime life of the universities.
The provision of Part II of the Bill are eminently sensible. Many of the appointments which otherwise would be due to be made clearly need not be made in war time, for obviously with a greatly diminished number of students smaller staffs will be necessary. Large numbers of the staff will be fighting or serving the country on the home front, and it would be ridiculous to require that all these appointments should be filled up as if there were no war. In the same way, other provisions seem to me to be sensible, and if we can be assured that there is no discrimination between the universities covered in this Bill, and other universities, university colleges and similar institutions, and that their financial difficulties will not be further aggravated by economies in the University Grants Committee's provisions, then I, at any rate, for my part am content to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to take the time of the House for more seconds than are necessary to thank His Majesty's Government for finding time to bring in this Bill, which is, I think, clearly necessary. I do not think there can be any doubt that it is on the right lines. It follows almost exactly the previous Statute, about which there have been very few complaints. I do not think there can be much in the Bill which needs amending, or which can be seriously criticised.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I was very glad that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) raised the question of universities other than Oxford and Cambridge. Durham is the only one of those included in the Bill, but other universities, less fortunately endowed with possessions than the great universities, will be

in a serious financial position owing to the war emergency. I was also glad that the Attorney-General made it clear that the good will of the Government would be with any measure necessary to put them in an equally favourable position. As Question Time to-day, the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) raised the particular question of the constitution of that university which would require legislation, or at least an Order in Council to deal with the difficulty which he had in view. Obviously, in regard to some of these universities there will be administrative difficulties which will need either an Act of Parliament or an Order in Council under the Emergency Powers Act. The reply to the hon. Member for the London University to-day indicated that if the other universities wished it, they might promote legislation. I am sure it will not be putting them on an equality with the universities of Oxford and Cambridge if they are to have the burden of promoting legislation themselves and if the Government do not undertake, as they have undertaken in this case, legislation on their behalf.
I hope we may have an assurance from the Attorney-General that, whether by Order in Council or by legislation, the Government will take the responsibility of easing the difficulties of the other universities—difficulties which have arisen from exactly the same cause as the difficulties with which the Bill deals—and that they will do so without putting on those universities the burden of expense and care which would be involved in promoting legislation in present circumstances. I am also glad that a plea has been made that, whatever happens at present, there will be no cutting down of the grants which are given through the University Grants Committee. If the universities have to use their capital for current expenditure in the first instance, it would be a most unfortunate thing for the future life of the universities, and the younger universities are in even greater need, financially, than those of Oxford and Cambridge. I hope that the Attorney-General may be able to give an assurance on those two points.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I do not desire to raise any objection to the Second Reading of the Bill, the more so because the hon.


Member who represents me in this House, though not always to my complete satisfaction, has given it his blessing, but there is one point about which I should like to ask the Attorney-General. I notice in Clause 4 a reference to "any College in the University," and in Clause 7 there is a definition of what a college is. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it is necessary to state that Girton and Newnham Colleges are colleges? Is it that they are women's colleges, or what is the reason? There are one or two men's colleges, too, which have to be brought in and denned as such, but I should have thought that such well known colleges as Girton and Newnham were recognised as colleges at Cambridge and that it was unnecessary to say so in this Clause.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I want to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and other hon. Members have said, to the effect that the economies proposed in this Bill should be equally applied to all universities. The older universities are more richly endowed than some of the newer ones, and, therefore, it would not be right to pare down the other universities and colleges which are not included in the term '' older universities." I would like to press on the Attorney-General and the House the question about the reducing of staffs. So far as possible I think the staffs ought to remain as fully manned as they can be. It is true that there will be fewer students, but those fewer students will certainly be more valuable after the war, because there will be so few trained university students leaving the colleges and the universities that they should be pearls of the purest water, and they will have a very great opportunity in the time to come, we hope, to spread the knowledge and extend the influence which they themselves have received at their colleges. I would also emphasise the grave danger of colleges and universities having to eat into their capital to carry on, and, therefore, I join with the hon. Members who have emphasised the fact that the grants should be maintained at least to the highest point at which they are now.

8.42 p.m.

The Attorney-General: With regard to "other universities," as I said, they

have their own problems and, I understand, are in contact with the Departments concerned. I could not, therefore, give any definite assurance as to any particular point of procedure in dealing with them. I gave expression to the general intention and desire, and I will ask the House to be content with that, because at the moment I do not desire to take it further. With regard to the University Grants Committee, that too is a matter which is quite outside of and unaffected by this Bill. The reason for this Bill depends on the fact that so far as Part I is concerned, under the Act of 1925, to which I have referred, the finances of these institutions are under the Minister of Agriculture, whose name the House will see on the back of the Bill, in respect to the raising of loans, and their position is dealt with by that public Act, and, therefore, an Amendment of that Act is properly included in this Bill. That is the reason why the University of Durham is dealt with in this Bill, because that is included under that Act. As to the position of the other universities, London University has its own Act and some are under charters, and their legal position is therefore different. Therefore, I cannot, I am afraid, this evening give a specific assurance as to how their problems will be dealt with. I should like to thank the junior burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) for what he said about this Bill, and the hon. Gentleman opposite who expressed general approval, and I hope the House will now see their way to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question about women's colleges?

The Attorney-General: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I think the reason for that difference is that, as he knows, the women's colleges are more modern foundations than the other colleges, and not only so, but their legal basis is in fact different. They have, I think, all of them, charters, and that is why in an earlier Clause of the Bill will be found the word "charters," because it is not in the Act of 1915. Therefore, to prevent any difficulty where it is intended to include the newer bodies on a different legal basis, it is thought right to put them in these terms in a definition of the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow. — [Major Sir J. Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)(NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

8.46 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill provides in respect of Northern Ireland for the administration of justice during the war on lines exactly similar to the Bills which the House passed through all their stages on 1st September in respect of England and Wales and Scotland. It is intended to guard against difficulties in the administration of justice which may arise as the result of enemy action during the war. The functions which in England will, if necessary, be exercised by the Lord Chancellor will in Northern Ireland fall to the Lord Chief Justice; and those in respect of inferior courts which in England fall to be discharged by the Home Secretary will in Northern Ireland be carried out by the Governor. These powers include such matters as the suspension of the sitting of the court, the removal of the courts to safer places, and the removal of the registers, records and matters of that kind. The Bill also limits the right of the parties in civil actions to demand a jury, and it reduces the number of jurymen required in civil or criminal cases from 12 to seven. It also extends the possible period of remand for persons in custody from eight to 21 days. The Bill may be brought to an end when the emergency is over by the simple procedure of an Order in Council, and its terms have been agreed with the authorities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Lees-Smith: This Bill has been looked at by one or two of my hon. Friends with professional qualifications on this subject, and on their advice I have no intention of delaying it.

Question, "That the Bill be now read Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow. — [Major Sir J. Edmondson.]

Orders of the Day — PATENTS, DESIGNS, COPYRIGHT AND TRADE MARKS (EMERGENCY) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

8.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The Bill can be divided into two parts. Clauses 1 to 5 make provision for patented inventions, registered designs, copyright work and, in one special case, registered trade marks belonging to an enemy or enemy subject to be used or produced by non-enemies in this country under licence The second part extends the limits of time within which certain acts such as the payment of renewal fees have to be done where the doing of an act is prevented by the state of war, or would injure the person concerned or the public interest. I think it would be as well if I described what the separate Clauses do. Clause 1 continues in force the licences held by persons in the United Kingdom at the outbreak of war under enemy-owned patents, subject, of course, to compliance with Trading with the Enemy Act, 1939. Under Clause 1 the Comptroller has the power to revoke or to vary any such licence. Clause 2, which is probably the most important Clause in the Bill, gives the Comptroller the power to grant to persons who are not enemies or enemy subjects, licences to use patents, registered designs and so forth in force here and belonging to enemies or enemy subjects. Any royalties acruing as a result of any such action would, of course, not go to the enemy patentees, but would be dealt with under the rules applicable to other enemy property in this country.
The same treatment is not appropriate to enemy-owned trade marks, the use of which cannot be said to be necessary in the public interest, and if carried on by persons here might lead to confusion. There is, however, a special case where some action is called for, and that is where the enemy-owned trade mark is the only practicable description of the article or substance. It may be that persons


here would wish to sell that particular article which is known only under its enemy-owned trade mark, and so in Clause 3 power is given to the Comptroller to suspend the enemy's rights in favour of any person who proposes to make or sell that article here, but only to the extent necessary to enable him to refer to that trade mark until he has established some other name or description of the article.
Clause 4 provides that new patents and registered designs may be granted on applications made by enemies, provided, of course, that the rights so created are subject to the enactments in force relating to enemy property. In other words, patents and registered designs may be granted on these applications, so that licences for their use by non-enemies in the United Kingdom may be granted in accordance with Clause 2. And similarly for trade marks and in Clause 5 for copyright. Clause 6 enables the Comptroller to extend the time laid down in the Patents and Designs Acts and the Trade Marks Acts for the doing of certain acts to which I referred in the beginning, where the doing of that Act either was prevented by the war or would have been contrary to the interests of the person concerned or to the public interest. That is to say that if a person is on active service or for other reasons occurring during the war was unable to fulfil his obligations under the Act, the Comptroller has the right to extend the time. The other Clauses, Clauses 7 to 11, deal with the necessary machinery of interpretation and the title of the Bill.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Pet hick-Lawrence: Speaking broadly, I think I may say that we on these Benches have no objection to this Bill, but there are two or three questions which I should like to put to the Minister, whom I, in common with other Members of the House, would like to congratulate upon his new appointment. I am not quite clear how far enemy subjects are included as well as enemies. Some of his references were almost exclusively to enemies, but certain of them apply to enemy subjects as well. I am not quite clear about what happens under Clause 2. To what extent is the property of the enemy, or the enemy subject, that is taken away during the years of war

resumes not only his rights at that time but is entitled to back payment in respect of the period during which he was deprived of his normal rights under the operation of the law? Perhaps, with the leave of the House, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will explain that point so that we may know where we stand. The second point is, how far is this Bill a re-enactment of the Act which was the law during the period from 1914 to 1918?

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: I have no doubt that this is a most necessary Bill. I rise only to express my pleasure at hearing my hon. and gallant Friend speaking from that Box and to wish him all success in his office.

Mr. Cocks: This is a Trade Marks Bill. I trust that the fact that it has been introduced by one who bears the name of the hon. and gallant Member will show to the enemy that the Government are stamped with the symbol and the hallmark of victory.

Major Lloyd George: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends for their expressions in regard to myself. In regard to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I think he will see that there is a definition of enemy and enemy subject in Clause 2 and in Clause 15 of the Trading with the Enemy Act, which will assist him in clearing up the matters which he raised. In regard to what will happen at the end of the war, I think it will be the same, broadly, as happened at the end of the last War. The House knows that the Trading with the Enemy Act requires that the property of an enemy will go to a custodian. The Bill runs on the same lines as the Act that we had in the last War.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow. — [Major Sir J. Edmondson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Major Sir J. Edmondson.]

Adjourned accordingly at One Minute before Nine o'Clock.